BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities Bill [ Lords] ( By Order )

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday 4 March (Standing Order No. 20) .

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked-

Fuel Poverty

Douglas Carswell: What recent estimate he has made of the level of fuel poverty in the UK.

David Amess: What recent estimate he has made of the level of fuel poverty in the UK.

John Baron: What recent estimate he has made of the level of fuel poverty in the UK.

David Kidney: The estimated number of households in fuel poverty in the UK was around 4 million in 2007, the latest year for which figures are available.

Douglas Carswell: Three and a quarter million of those 4 million households in fuel poverty are designated as being vulnerable households. How are the Government going to meet their 2010 target for eradicating fuel poverty in such households, if that is still possible?

David Kidney: We have to recognise the additional challenge that has been set by rising energy prices over the past few years, but we still intend to work as hard as possible for those vulnerable households, giving help through the obligation on suppliers to insulate homes and through Warm Front, through which we directly fund home insulation. We are also giving help through people's incomes by means of measures such as the winter fuel and cold weather payments, and through the control of prices, including the present voluntary agreement, which we are seeking to turn into a mandatory social price support scheme through the Energy Bill.

Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that a large element of fuel poverty relates to the energy efficiency of the homes in which fuel-poor people live? Does he also accept that efforts to ensure that those homes are made properly energy efficient are a vital part of our attack on fuel poverty? What is his assessment of the likely impact of community energy response teams, community energy saving programmes, and other schemes, such as the Great British Refurb, on improving the energy efficiency of homes?

David Kidney: I agree that the most sustainable way of helping people to stay out of fuel poverty is to ensure that their homes are energy efficient. That is why we have concentrated so much on the energy companies' obligation, under which more than 6 million homes have been insulated. Another 2 million have been insulated under Warm Front. The community energy saving programmes scheme is also important in guiding us towards choosing the best policy for sustainable energy programmes, which we intend to reveal shortly in our latest strategy.

David Amess: As the promoter of the Bill that became the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, I am naturally disappointed that the targets that were set will not be reached this year. The Department is undertaking a review, so will the Minister tell the House when the results will be announced? What instructions will be given to officials to ensure that the strategy is put back on track?

David Kidney: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has a long and distinguished record of campaigning on these issues in the House and outside it. He is right to say that we are undertaking a review of our present policies to see whether they can be made more effective, or whether we need new ones. I am giving evidence to the Select Committee in March, and I hope to be able to talk about the emerging findings of the review at that time.

John Baron: In order to fight fuel poverty, Ofgem is now going to force energy supply companies to print on customers' bills details of how their tariff compares with the company's standard direct debit tariff. Why will that information be given out only on an annual statement? That will discriminate against active switchers who might not get such a statement because they have not been with a company for 12 months.

David Kidney: Again, I think that praise is called for. The hon. Gentleman knows that I wrote to him to praise his campaigning on the issue of supplying information to customers, and I am happy to take this opportunity publicly to do so again. The annual reports start this year, so it is perhaps a little early for us to say that it is not a good enough scheme. Every energy bill will contain information about consumption and costs to customers, and I am working with Consumer Focus, the watchdog and champion of all consumers, on improving the quality of such information so that we will be able to give better information to members of the public every day of the year.

Gavin Strang: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are three components of fuel poverty: dwelling energy efficiency, fuel prices, and household income? Should not Opposition Members recognise that, although things are harder because of fuel prices, a lot more people would be living in fuel poverty if it were not for the increases in child benefit, the working tax credit and the winter fuel allowance?

David Kidney: My right hon. Friend is right about those three issues, and this Government have been determined, even during the worst global recession of my lifetime, to maintain spending on measures such as the winter fuel payment and child tax credits. Such payments have helped vulnerable consumers to pay their bills.

Natascha Engel: Given that, when we talk about fuel poverty, we are actually talking about poverty itself, what specific measures are being targeted at people who live in council houses?

David Kidney: My hon. Friend is right to say that general poverty is an important issue for the Government to address, which is why we have worked so hard to eradicate pensioner poverty. Now we are even legislating to eradicate child poverty in this country. We pay attention to helping council house tenants, through the payment of their rent and council tax through the benefits that we offer them.

Simon Hughes: It is nearly 13 years since the beginning of this Labour Government, and is it not a sign of the priority that they have given to dealing with the massive fuel bills that customers regularly receive-we still have no strategy to make every home a warm home-that within three months of the end of this Parliament there is still no coherent Labour policy on the issue?

David Kidney: Now come on. We have arranged, through the energy supply companies' obligation, for insulation to more than 6 million homes. Through Warm Front, we have directly funded insulation for an additional 2 million homes. We have a policy that every home with a cavity wall or loft that is uninsulated will be insulated by 2015. Having dealt with those so-called easy wins, we recognise that the next issue for us to tackle is hard-to-treat properties, such as those requiring solid wall insulation. Our strategy, which we will unveil shortly, will show how we will address those matters too.

Charles Hendry: I thank the Minister for his kind words to my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for Billericay (Mr. Baron) for their campaigning on fuel poverty issues. Has he seen the recent report by Ofgem showing that the number of customers falling into debt on their electricity bills has increased by 105 per cent. on the previous year, and by a shocking 147 per cent. in the case of gas customers, and that those figures are getting worse? Does he recall the Secretary of State brushing aside our calls in 2008 for a Competition Commission investigation into energy prices, saying that it would cause two years of uncertainty? Does he accept that such an investigation would have been completed by now, and we could have had real evidence about the level of electricity and gas prices rather than the understandable suspicion and anxiety?

David Kidney: No. The investigation by the Competition Commission of the domestic oil companies took five years from complaint until remedies. In fact, Ofgem conducted a probe, completed its conclusions and issued the new licence conditions, which are now all in force, in less than two years. I completely reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend will be aware of the profit results announced by British Gas today. Does he agree that now is the time for energy companies such as British Gas to cut their prices to consumers?

David Kidney: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We have just come through one of the most severe winters for decades, with customers struggling to pay their high energy bills. Any help that energy companies can give to those customers at this difficult time is welcome. As we can see from energy companies' profit results, they can afford that help, so others should follow the lead that British Gas gave earlier this month and cut their prices now.

Gas Storage

Andrew MacKay: How much additional gas storage capacity he expects to become available in the UK by 2012.

Edward Miliband: National Grid's recent "Ten Year Statement 2009" expects just over 0.5 billion cubic metres of additional gas storage capacity to be commissioned by 2011-12, or an addition of more than 10 per cent. to capacity, including Aldbrough, which will be the second largest facility in the country. In addition, 20 other projects are planned for completion beyond that date, including the Gateway project, which will provide 1.5 billion cubic metres of extra capacity by 2014. That storage capacity is on top of the increase in import capacity in recent years, representing 125 per cent. of annual demand.

Andrew MacKay: But in layman's language, does that not mean that there will be just two days of additional gas storage available by the end of 2012? At a time when we are hugely dependent on imports, is the Secretary of State satisfied that that is sufficient?

Edward Miliband: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present for the energy security debate in the House some weeks ago, but the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) discovered in that debate and through asking other questions that simply quoting storage numbers when we have the North sea, import capacity and liquefied natural gas facilities tells only a small part of the story. Indeed, the National Grid dismissed his statistics as a "meaningless number". We do need more storage capacity, but the most important thing is changing the planning system. We are doing that through the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which will now be responsible for onshore wind. The suggestions of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) would best be directed at those on his Front Bench, who oppose our reforms in relation to the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

Nick Ainger: The Secretary of State will be well aware of the major contribution, certainly over the past few months, of the two LNG import terminals in Pembrokeshire and the Isle Of Grain in Kent. Up to 27 per cent. of annual consumption is provided through those terminals. Bearing in mind the future reduction of North sea capacity, and the possible risks of the continental connection, will the Secretary of State talk to the Crown Estate, with which the UK gas storage association is having major difficulties in reaching agreement about offshore storage?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend has made two important points. The first was about LNG facilities. I can tell him that the LNG facility at Milford Haven, which was not in operation last year, currently meets about 10 per cent. of total UK gas demand. That is one of the ways we are meeting our gas needs as the supply from the North sea declines. As for my hon. Friend's second point, although the Crown Estate is independent from Government, we continue to think about the issues involved. The recent licensing of the Gateway project suggests that they can be dealt with.

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman agrees that we need more gas storage. Can he tell us how many days' supply we have at this moment?

Edward Miliband: There are different estimates. It depends whether we take account of the North sea, LNG facilities, and the fact that medium-range storage can be refilled.
	The hon. Gentleman tried this in January, when we experienced very cold weather. It was not me but National Grid that said he was producing a "meaningless number". I can tell him that alarmism about energy security does him, and political debate, no good at all.

Greg Clark: I should have thought that the Secretary of State would inform himself of the day-to-day storage levels. For 18 months the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), has been warning that we need more gas in storage. Let me give the Minister the answer that he was unable to give me. As of last night, we have three days' worth of gas in storage. That is the lowest level for many years, despite the fact that as imports increase we need a greater security margin. Other countries have more storage, Ofgem says we need more storage, and the Select Committee says we need more storage. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time the Government had a policy on what our security margin should be?

Edward Miliband: The strange thing about the hon. Gentleman is that, although he talks a lot about gas storage, he has not one single policy in favour of having more of it.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks me, from a sedentary position, what my policy is. The single most important policy that we are pursuing relates to the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which will deal with one of the biggest gas storage issues that we face by reforming planning. What is the hon. Gentleman's policy on the Infrastructure Planning Commission? His policy is to abolish it, and that says all we need to know. Once again, the Conservative party's policy has not been thought through, and they are not ready for government.

Greenhouse Gases (India and China)

Peter Bone: What recent discussions he has had with the Indian and Chinese Governments on their policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

David Miliband: I had many discussions with Indian and Chinese representatives at the Copenhagen negotiations which led to the Copenhagen accord, in which both China and India set targets in time for the 31 January deadline. Since Copenhagen I have also discussed climate issues with the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom-until she recently became China's Vice Foreign Minister-and various issues, including those relating to climate and energy, with Anand Sharma, the Indian Minister for Commerce and Industry.

Peter Bone: Many people in this country do their bit to cut carbon dioxide emissions-I, for instance, drive a biofuel car-but that will pale into insignificance unless we can persuade the Indian and Chinese Governments to do more. Why does the Secretary of State think so little progress has been made?

Edward Miliband: I think more progress has been made than would seem apparent from the disappointment of the Copenhagen negotiations. The Copenhagen accord covers about 80 per cent. of global emissions. This is the first time that we have secured an agreement that covers such a wide range of emissions across the world. We need to turn it into a legally binding document, which is, in a sense, the biggest challenge that we face. The reason the task is so difficult is that these are very big issues about the future of different economies across the world.

Ian Cawsey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that not far from his constituency, in Brigg and Goole and other constituencies on the south Humber bank, are companies such as Corus, Singleton Birch and, in Goole, Guardian Glass, which are being expected-rightly-to reduce emissions as part of the Government's overall strategy, but are competing against companies that are setting themselves up and building new plants in countries with fast-growing economies, such as India and China. They feel that is unfair and that there is no level playing field, because they are having to take action that the companies in those other countries are not. When will my right hon. Friend be able to make more progress, so that we can report to workers in this country that they are not being unfairly discriminated against?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is because of that situation that there are provisions in the EU emissions trading scheme to protect against so-called carbon leakage. We give out allowances free to the most exposed sectors, rather than auctioning them. The European Commission is currently examining the different criteria, and will make further announcements later this year.
	The other point I would make is that there is also a first-mover advantage for us in getting ahead in this low-carbon technology, and it is important that we do that as well.

Greg Clark: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the shadow Minister with responsibility for climate change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), cannot be here today as he is in Beijing meeting Chinese Ministers responsible for those issues.
	We admired the Secretary of State's work in advance of Copenhagen-I think he knows that-but in the aftermath of Copenhagen, perhaps for reasons of understandable frustration, he accused China of trying to hijack the summit and of holding other countries to ransom. On reflection, does he regret that approach, and does he believe that as no global deal is possible without China, he should take steps to understand why China felt a global deal was not in its interests, with a view to persuasion rather than condemnation? Also, does he have a positive-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said on innumerable occasions that questions from the Front Bench are all too often simply too long. The hon. Gentleman has put a question, and I know he will look forward to hearing the reply.

Edward Miliband: I do not regret being open and honest with people about why the Copenhagen negotiations did not achieve all that we had hoped, because I think that is a very important duty in politics. We went to the Copenhagen negotiations to try to secure a legal treaty and global targets, and it is right to explain to people why those ambitions were not achieved. It is also right to say, as I made clear in my discussions with the Chinese ambassador, that the task now is to move on and work with China, India and others to try to resolve the remaining differences.

Frank Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in our discussions with the Chinese, we would be in a better position when talking about emissions from coal-fired power stations if the previous Tory Government had not been so short-sighted and closed down the clean coal technology research project and research into improving the thermal efficiency of coal-fired power stations?  [Interruption.]

Edward Miliband: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is very clear from Conservative Members' responses to that question that they do not like to be reminded of their past, and it is no wonder-although I know that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) was in a different party in the period referred to.
	My right hon. Friend is right. I think there is an important future for clean coal in this country. That is why it is important that the Energy Bill makes the carbon capture and storage levy available to support that.

Project Discovery

Andrew Selous: What steps he plans to take in response to Ofgem's Project Discovery report.

David Kidney: Ofgem's consultation is one of a number of resources that my Department is taking into account in its ongoing work on maintaining secure and affordable energy supplies during the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Andrew Selous: Why have the Government done so little to prepare for the hon. Gentleman's Department's forecasts that up to 16 million households could be sitting in the dark by 2017, and is the fact that only three Labour MPs have questions on the Order Paper today indicative of his party's lack of concern about this issue?

David Kidney: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a low view of policies that are delivering on investment, price and supply in this country. If he wants solid evidence of that, he need only look back one month to one of the severest winters in decades, when the system in this country coped extremely well.

Brian Jenkins: My hon. Friend will recognise that Ofgem faces difficult problems. We, as the former owners of the generating facilities and energy companies, have suffered badly in that we were ripped off. We did not realise that the payment was only a down payment, and we have been ripped off every year by these companies ever since. When will my hon. Friend ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to provide a set of NHS gnashers to give to the toothless watchdog we have got-the regulator?

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his robust expression of a dissatisfaction that is felt throughout the House with the performance of the regulator since privatisation of the energy sector. However, I can assure him that in the Energy Bill that this House voted in favour of last night there are measures to strengthen the powers of Ofgem.

Julie Kirkbride: As the Minister will be aware, it is estimated that about £200 billion will need to be invested in energy production in the next decade if the lights are not going to go off. In the light of that figure, does he think that the £800 million-plus profit that British Gas announced today should be used for further investment or cutting bills?

David Kidney: The hon. Lady invites me to answer one of the key questions. We want energy companies to invest £200 billion in infrastructure projects in this country over the next decade, so we should celebrate the fact that they are successful global companies that do make profits. However, when those profits are excessive and members of the public are struggling to pay high energy bills after four successive years of very big increases, we are entitled to say that as world prices fall the customers should share in that benefit.

Simon Hughes: Given that the big energy companies have made the highest ever profits over the past five years and that only today British Gas announced a profit of nearly £600 million, which is an increase of more than 50 per cent., why should anybody support a party that, as the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) indicated a moment ago, has so abysmally failed to take on the big energy companies, stand up for consumers and give us a regulator that does anything useful to justify its existence?

David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to the previous question and answer, nor the one before that. It is important that we have successful energy companies but, equally, because of the monopolistic elements of their industry, it is important to have a strong regulator. As I have just said, we are legislating in the Energy Bill to make that regulator stronger.

Greg Clark: Last July, the Secretary of State told the House that
	"gas imports...will be kept to 2010 levels for the whole of the following decade".-[ Official Report, 15 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 293-94.]
	Yet both Ofgem and the National Grid Company say that gas imports will rise substantially during the next eight years and that 70 per cent. of our gas will be imported. Who is right?

David Kidney: The Government stand by the UK low carbon transition plan, which we published last year and which contains our favoured scenario for what will happen by 2020. The hon. Gentleman asks who is right and who is wrong. There are a range of views on this and we are taking them all into account as we develop our energy market assessment, the first findings of which will be announced alongside this year's Budget.

Greg Clark: The Minister has just confirmed that the Government take a different view from the regulator. When it was disclosed that his Department expected power cuts in 2017, the Secretary of State dumped the data and changed the figures. Yet this month Ofgem, the regulator, has said:
	"In 2017 we get to the really sweaty-palm moment in terms of possible shortages".
	It talked of the "profound" and "worrying" state of
	"collapse in energy supply from 2013".
	Ofgem has rubbished the Secretary of State's complacent assumptions on gas and electricity and has called for a different policy on security. Why has the energy regulator lost confidence in this Secretary of State?

David Kidney: I just mentioned the low carbon transition plan, which suggests a major investment in the trinity of clean coal, nuclear and renewables. It is unfortunate that in every one of those areas the hon. Gentleman's party is obstructive-I am thinking of the approach it has taken on the planning system for nuclear power with the Infrastructure Planning Commission, on the proposed levy, and on the introduction yesterday of the proposal by some Opposition Members of an emissions performance standard. On renewables, he does not have to look far behind him to see the Members who do not agree with developing wind power in this country.

Coal-fired Power Stations

Tom Brake: What plans he has to limit the level of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations after 2020.

Joan Ruddock: The Government's "A framework for the development of clean coal", which was published in November, delivers a comprehensive package of policy measures that will drive the transition to clean coal to 2020 and beyond. Our ambition is that any new coal plant constructed from 2020 will be fully carbon capture and storage from day one and that coal-fired power stations with demonstration projects will retrofit CCS to their full capacity by 2025.

Tom Brake: The energy industry needs a stronger signal now that the Government are serious about getting carbon out of energy; otherwise it will not make the necessary investments. The emissions trading scheme is not working, and last night the Government blocked the introduction of an emissions performance standard. Why will they not take on the power giants, introduce legal limits on power stations and force them to cut their carbon emissions drastically?

Joan Ruddock: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have the most radical and most environmentally demanding coal policy in the world, and we have the greatest incentive to industry to invest with the CCS levy. Frankly, not a single company and not a single independent adviser such as the Committee on Climate Change would support him in saying that introducing an emissions performance standard at this point would be appropriate.

John Grogan: Why have the Government rejected the findings in the report they commissioned from Oxera, which recommended raising the cap on the amount of biomass that coal-fired power stations such as Drax can blend with coal from 12.5 to 17.5 per cent.?

Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. We are looking at the whole field and at the use of biomass. This is not a technology in which we can have total confidence at the moment. There are issues of sustainability in the production of the biomass, if it involves new crops, and the burning of biomass brings up air pollution issues, too. We have to take some time over this. We are in discussions with people at Drax and we will be considering the issues that they raise about investment, incentives and the cap.

National Grid (East Anglia)

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of local authorities in East Anglia to discuss the operation of the national grid.

David Kidney: The Secretary of State has no plans to meet the representatives of local authorities in East Anglia to discuss the operation of the national grid.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that Centrica is going to double the size of the King's Lynn gas-fired power station, which will mean that it will need the national grid to connect the new power to its main power lines with new pylons, which will be extremely unsightly. What is his policy for burying such new pylons underground?

David Kidney: I think I am right to point out to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) that this is one of the hon. Members who is against developing wind power in this country. We need £200 billion of investment in our energy infrastructure over the next decade, some of which will be for the cables that deliver the power from the place of generation to the place of consumption. On the whole, overhead power cables have been the most robust and cost-effective way of delivering that energy in the past.

Microgeneration

John Howell: What recent estimate he has made of the likely proportion of the UK's electricity supply to be generated by microgeneration technologies in 2020.

David Kidney: We estimate that approximately 2 per cent. of the UK's electricity supply will be generated by small-scale technologies in 2020.

John Howell: Among EU countries, the UK lies behind everyone except Luxembourg and Malta in renewable energy use. What lessons does the Minister think he can learn from more successful EU member states?

David Kidney: Clearly not to follow the example of Conservative Members in opposing renewable energy developments, but rather to follow successful Labour policies, such as the one that makes us the lead in the world in offshore wind. The hon. Gentleman's question was about microgeneration, so perhaps we can return to the subject of feed-in tariffs, which a Labour Government are introducing from this April and which will encourage these developments.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend know that Carbon Connect's progress report on low-carbon technologies, on the commercial barriers and on how we overcome them will be launched somewhere around Westminster this lunch time?

David Kidney: I certainly hope that I am aware of that important event as I am due to speak at it.

Carbon Emission Reduction (Local Government)

Tony Baldry: What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of local government to meeting the UK's carbon emission reduction targets.

Joan Ruddock: Local authorities have a key leadership role in reducing their emissions and those occurring within their areas. The Government have announced a pilot of local carbon frameworks, which aim to increase the contribution of local authorities to meeting the UK's carbon emissions reduction targets.
	Estimates of per capita CO2 emissions for 2007, and revised estimates for 2005 and 2006, for all UK local authorities and Government office regions were published on the DECC website on 17 September and were updated on 9 November.
	DECC also collects statistics on the CO2 emissions of local authorities' own estate and operations. The Department is analysing returns for the year ending 31 March 2009 and will publish the figures soon.

Tony Baldry: I thank the Minister of State for that answer. May I press her on what powers and resources the Government intend to give to local authorities to enable them to promote green technology and sustainable development and to meet their carbon reduction commitments?

Joan Ruddock: I shall begin with the carbon reduction commitment, which is, of course, a national scheme being introduced this April. Within that, local authorities will have a duty to look to their energy efficiency, and their resulting emissions will have to be measured. They will have the opportunity, in the first year, simply to record that information. We will, of course, assist in that. In order to reduce their emissions and increase their energy efficiency, they get assistance from the Carbon Trust and Salix finance loans are available. We have a very good record of working with local government. The indicators are there through the local government performance framework, and local authorities have sufficient powers to make the necessary changes. Of course, they will make a vital contribution.

Adrian Bailey: An appropriate planning regulatory regime is essential for local authorities to develop local emissions reduction projects in their areas. What assessment has been made of potential changes to planning regulations that impede such developments?

Joan Ruddock: Some concerns have been expressed by local authorities, and, indeed, by individual households and businesses, about the ability to introduce new technologies in a way that is consistent with local needs and local views. We have given local authorities the right to determine their own planning policies to an extent, as well as, more recently, to agree permitted development so that we can make some progress with small-scale microgeneration.

Prepayment Meters

Nicholas Winterton: What recent progress he has made on phasing out domestic energy prepayment meters.

David Kidney: Prepayment meters play an important role in helping some customers to control their energy expenditure and should remain an option for consumers. Smart meters will in due course replace current prepayment meters and we are committed to rolling out smart meters to all households. Meanwhile, the replacement of the older-style token prepayment meters was due to be nearly completed by the end of 2009. I await an update on the present position from Ofgem.

Nicholas Winterton: There is a lot of concern about energy prepayment meters because they are used mainly by those on lower incomes. Is it right that such people should pay more for their gas than those who are better off? When will prepayment meters be entirely phased out? Phasing them out would be a good thing, and that idea is warmly supported by Labour Members.

David Kidney: For the reasons that I have given, I do not, regretfully, agree with the hon. Gentleman about the presence and use of prepayment meters, but they will all be gone when we have smart meters by the end of 2020. In the mean time, one of the Ofgem licence conditions that I mentioned earlier was to rule out any unfair discrimination against users of prepayment meters. As a result, the differential between prepayment meter and standard credit rates has effectively been eliminated.

Rosie Cooper: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we wait for smart meters, it is right that the Government should intervene to prevent the most vulnerable people from being ripped off for having to use prepayment meters?

David Kidney: Yes; we called on Ofgem to carry out that probe, we supported the licence conditions that it proposed and I am pleased that they have been implemented.

Gas Storage

David Jones: How much additional gas storage capacity he expects to become available in the UK by 2012.

Edward Miliband: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) some moments ago.

David Jones: I am obliged to the Secretary of State, but may I refer him to the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) regarding developments under the sea bed? Clearly, the Crown Estate holds the key to future developments under the sea bed, but the gas storage operators group accuses it of behaving it as a monopoly. What influence can the Secretary of State bring to bear on the Crown Estate to ensure that it behaves in a commercial manner?

Edward Miliband: It is fair to say that negotiations between the Crown Estate and gas storage operators are commercial negotiations, but we engage with that and we are in discussions with the Crown Estate. They make their own decisions about tariffs and fees, but we are due to talk to them about that. We can also help by making tax changes. For example, the tax change that we made in relation to cushion gas has helped to make storage more viable.

Boiler Scrappage Scheme

Philip Dunne: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the boiler scrappage scheme against its objectives.

Joan Ruddock: The boiler scrappage scheme commenced on 5 January this year and is proving to be highly successful. It has, to date, received more than 95,000 applications. The scheme contributes to DECC's objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK through reduced energy consumption and to ensure that the UK benefits from the business and employment opportunities of a low-carbon future. We estimate that the scheme will reduce CO2 emissions by between 1.1 million and 1.4 million tonnes a year.

Philip Dunne: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I am not surprised, and I am encouraged to hear about the take-up, but is she aware that, when condensing boilers are retrofitted, the water run-off pipe is often fitted on the outside of a building? When those pipes freeze, as is happening in the current freezing conditions, the boilers break, with the result that households have no heat or hot water. What are the Government doing to stop that happening?

Joan Ruddock: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps Ministers ought to be taking a course in plumbing, although I must tell him that I have no plans to do so. I have a condensing boiler myself, and my external run-off pipe has not frozen, but he may be correct about this being something that we need to look into. However, I hope that he will not want to detract in any way from the great success of the boiler scrappage scheme and the huge savings in CO2 emissions-and therefore the good effects on climate change-that it is achieving.

Climate Change Research

Lynne Jones: What recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the scientific case for man-made climate change; and if he will make a statement.

Joan Ruddock: Last year, DECC and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs launched the AVOID research programme on avoiding dangerous climate change which assessed the scientific research published since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report. The findings informed the UK delegation ahead of Copenhagen. The integrated climate programme at the Met Office Hadley centre is also providing new climate science research and expert advice on the findings of that research.

Lynne Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In this country, there has been a broad consensus that the risk of dangerous climate change is real. It is based on broad and deep scientific evidence, with acknowledged uncertainties, that we cannot go on pumping billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without serious adverse effects. Does she agree that, if we are to continue to take the right decisions for the long term, it is important that that political consensus is maintained, and that we should not be distracted by the noise being made by those who claim that climate change is not a serious risk?

Joan Ruddock: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. We have seen nothing that undermines the main body of climate research, which goes back many decades and has involved some of the best scientists in the world. Although it is clear that there have been some errors and possible misjudgments, we know that CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are growing at an unprecedented rate. We have every reason to accept that that is the result of human activities. I am pleased that the consensus that it is human activities that are leading to the excessive warming that we see, and to the other climatic effects that we associate with climate change, holds across this House.

Oil Refining

Stephen Crabb: What recent discussions he has had with the petroleum industry on capacity reductions in the oil refining sector.

David Kidney: The UK operates a market-based approach to the supply of refined products, and it is therefore a matter for individual companies to determine how best to meet their customer demand and what level of refining capacity is needed to do that. However, my Department has an ongoing dialogue with the UK downstream oil sector, including the oil refining industry as represented by the UK Petroleum Industry Association. As part of that dialogue, we recently commissioned and published a report by respected independent consultants on the UK downstream oil infrastructure.

Stephen Crabb: I thank the Minister for that reply, and for making time before Christmas to meet me and discuss this issue. However, is he aware of the enormous concern among UK refiners about the renewable heat incentive? They believe that it will load them with an additional cost burden and place them at a severe competitive disadvantage, which will only raise and heighten fears about potential plant closures and enormous job losses as a result.

David Kidney: Yes, I am aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I met members of the PIA this week to discuss that and other issues. The Government are listening to their point of view, and we have responded to their representations already. I know that the Treasury has certainly got in mind their point of view as it works toward this year's Budget.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be aware of the sale of Grangemouth, and that Stanlow in my constituency is up for sale. Will he ensure that the Department keeps a close eye on the broader public interest and, specifically, that it helps at a local level to ensure that the work force are properly protected in such circumstances?

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There have been a number of reviews by participants in that market in recent years, and I agree that it is important that all members of the industry are engaged in such reviews, including the work force and their trade union representatives.

University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit

Andrew Pelling: Whether he has had recent discussions with representatives of the university of East Anglia on the work of its climatic research unit.

Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State has not had any recent discussions with representatives of the university of East Anglia on the work of its climate research unit.

Andrew Pelling: Does the Minister not agree, though, that it would be useful to have such conversations with that climate change unit in order to argue that, for the sake of belief and faith in climate change, those figures should be credible? Do you think that we should ask the university to conduct an independent inquiry, or, if it is unable to do so, that the Government themselves should initiate an independent inquiry?

Mr. Speaker: Naturally, I do not think anything on these matters, but I am sure that the Minister does.

Joan Ruddock: Indeed, I do, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it appropriate for us to be in discussion with the university of East Anglia. It has announced that an independent review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, will look into the data and the e-mail hacking incident. It will report later in the spring, and those findings will of course be made public. That is appropriate.
	On our belief in the science, I have already said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) that the Government remain absolutely convinced. We believe that the data worldwide are robust, and that we have no reason to question them. However, it is appropriate that the East Anglian incident be investigated thoroughly.

Topical Questions

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Miliband: My Department works with others to ensure that Britain can take the lead in low-carbon manufacturing. Today we are announcing a new research and development facility for offshore wind blade testing in Blyth, following Government investment of £18.5 million. We also welcome Mitsubishi's announcement that it will locate its offshore research and development facility in the UK, creating 200 skilled jobs, following last week's announcement by Clipper Windpower about its factory in the north-east.

Nicholas Winterton: I obviously thank the Secretary of State for that detailed response, but it will not have anything to do with my question.
	A 92-year-old, partially sighted, disabled constituent has written to me on the advice of Age Concern about her serious problems over two years with the Warm Front team, which installed a condenser boiler. The problem, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) referred but did not receive a sensible reply, has caused a total breakdown of the boiler. Warm Front can do nothing about it, and my constituent has had to spend more than £200 herself on a private contractor to provide her with heat. Will the Government do something about it, and will the Secretary of State look into Warm Front's ineffective and inefficient operations?

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious question about his constituent, and I assure him that if he passes the details to us my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will look into it urgently and talk to Warm Front about sorting out the problem. When the Department came into being, there were a number of complaints about Warm Front, and we took a whole series of actions to improve the value for money and operation of the scheme. I think that they are having an effect, but when there are cases in which things go wrong, we want to take action as quickly as possible, working with Warm Front, and we will do so in that case.

Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that there have been 592,000 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease claims and 170,000 vibration white finger claims. In other words, 750,000 claims have gone through his Department, so a great deal of experience in them will have been gained. Will he ensure that in future, if there is a potential liability relating to a prescribed disease in the mining industry, it will be dealt with by a scheme, rather than by the courts at an enormous cost?

David Kidney: Yes, I acknowledge the huge scale of the two compensation schemes that my hon. Friend mentions, and more than £4 billion of taxpayers' money has been paid out in compensation to miners, who have suffered some horrendous injuries. I think that my hon. Friend alludes predominantly to the knee injury litigation that is ongoing, and I assure him that we have attempted to learn all the lessons of those earlier schemes in order to ensure that, if liability is established, we act in the way that he asks me to ask. In the meantime, I credit my hon. Friend and others who have made representations to the Government about that knee condition for a new industrial injury benefit, which is now in place.

Alistair Carmichael: The recently announced feed-in tariff creates a two-tier structure for small generators that feed into the grid, leaving those who were prepared to take the initiative in the early stages, at their own financial risk, much worse off. How do the Government justify that unfairness?

Joan Ruddock: I have sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. However, he needs to bear in mind that all the schemes impact on everyone, and we all have to make a contribution if the issue is to be addressed. The whole point of setting the feed-in tariff now is to enable the generation of more renewable energy, and that is why it requires the best possible incentive. Those who have already taken the initiative on their own account will not be producing more generation, and the Government's aim has to be to get more in place and to create the incentive to make that happen. If we were to equalise the payment, that would not create more generation or more CO2 savings.

James McGovern: In my home town of Dundee, tens of thousands of people have claimed the cold weather payment over the past year. I hope that the Minister agrees that there is still much to be done. Does he also agree that without the cold weather payment and the winter fuel allowance, many of the most vulnerable in our society would have to endure the unacceptable face of fuel poverty?

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is part of our strategy of addressing the problem of people's incomes and ability to pay energy bills. He is right that even during this toughest of times and the recession that we have been through, a Labour Chancellor has maintained the higher amounts of both the winter fuel allowance and the cold weather payment this year, because he understands that that is the right thing to do for the vulnerable people involved.

Andrew Selous: Ofgem's latest figures show that prepayment meter customers, who are often from the poorest households, are still paying up to £60 a year more for their electricity and up to £107 a year more for their gas. Given the profits being made by the energy companies, will the Secretary of State ask them to eliminate that differential completely?

David Kidney: We have eradicated the differential between prepayment meters and the standard credit, so the hon. Gentleman has now moved on to the differential between the prepayment meter and direct debit. At present, the licence condition is that a cost differential is permissible to reflect simply the extra cost of providing the means of payment. According to Ofgem, a prepayment meter costs about £88 a year more to administer than a direct debit. That would be the difficulty for me in acceding to the hon. Gentleman's latest request.

Denis MacShane: On steel and energy, will the Secretary of State support the view of the Community union that the carbon credits for Tata's Teesside plant should be held in trust until the company agrees to talk with the Government and the union on resuming work there? Will he also meet me and colleagues to look at an over-rigorous interpretation of an EU regulation that might seriously damage electric arc furnace steel making in the UK?

Edward Miliband: I am sure that we can arrange a meeting with my right hon. Friend on the second question that he raised. On his first question, I should say that the Teesside issue is important. My right hon. Friend Lord Mandelson continues to be in discussions about the serious matter of what can be done at the plant. We will continue to take those discussions forward.

David Evennett: The disparity between wholesale and retail energy prices is woefully lacking in transparency. Even Consumer Focus, the Government's own watchdog, has said that households could be paying as much as £74 a year too much. The Government seem to have dithered over the issue. Will Ministers follow our advice and take some decisive action by referring the matter to an independent inquiry?

Edward Miliband: As I have said before in the House, I am not in favour of referring these matters to the Competition Commission if we can avoid it, because that will tie the whole energy industry up in knots. What is our strategy as a Government? It is to give the regulators more power, as we are doing in the Energy Bill; to eliminate some of the worst unfairnesses-in respect of prepayment meters, for example; and, rightly, to say to companies that they have a responsibility not only to their shareholders but to customers. We are doing all those things.

David Evennett: What about transparency?

Edward Miliband: On transparency, it is only because the Government have got Ofgem to publish a quarterly report on the relationship between wholesale and retail prices that we now know what that relationship is.

Linda Gilroy: Does the Minister understand that up to 40 per cent. of domestic energy bills can be accounted for by heating hot water, and that much of that can be wasted through inefficient installations? Is he talking to the Minister with responsibility for water at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the synergies between smart metering roll-out in water and electricity and other synergies between water efficiency and energy efficiency?

Edward Miliband: I clearly should be, and following my hon. Friend's request I am sure that we will do so. She makes an important point about the heating of hot water and the role that can be played by the kind of technology that can both heat hot water and help to heat people's homes-combined heat and power. There is a lot to be done in that area. We are introducing the renewable heat incentive, which will make an enormous difference to people in heating their homes, but we will also engage in the discussions that she suggests.

Stephen Crabb: Will the Secretary of State speak to Unite in the strongest terms about its proposed industrial action at the port of Milford Haven, which, although temporarily postponed, would risk cutting off access to vital supplies of crude oil and liquefied natural gas? Our energy situation is too fragile for security of supply to be used as a tool in industrial disputes, no matter how legitimate the grievances of the employees concerned.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. While this is of course ultimately a matter for unions and management to resolve, we have engaged in discussions with both sides on these issues. I am pleased that the strike action that was due on Tuesday of this week did not go ahead, and I very much hope that a satisfactory resolution can be reached.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares with me a mutual concern that we exploit every drop of gas and oil in and around our own waters. May I congratulate him on the introduction of the field allowance in the North sea, which is proving so successful? I put it to him, in the same terms, that the brownfield sites around the same area, but a bit further away from the existing production facilities, may have 80 per cent. of what is recoverable, and that we should introduce something that makes those equally viable.

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important decision made by the Chancellor about the field allowance, which I believe was initially introduced in the last Budget. He built on that in the pre-Budget report, and has since made further announcements on it. I will ensure that this is brought to his attention, and I am sure that he will be looking at the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Speaker: I call Dr. Evan Harris.

Evan Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  [ Interruption. ] I come hot-foot from a meeting at your office, Sir. Does the Secretary of State agree that despite the controversy over the university of East Anglia e-mails, the science is very clear, not least from other data sets, that global warming is a real effect, and that we should not be distracted by this controversy from insisting on our policies?

Edward Miliband: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his just-in-time questioning. He raises an important issue. Clearly, mistakes have been made, and it is important that those are looked at and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looks at its procedures. I have written to Dr. Pachauri to emphasise our support for the organisation, but also our wish that it looks at its procedures to try to eliminate such errors. The overall picture is very clear: climate change is happening, it is real, and it is man-made. It is very important to say that.

Natascha Engel: I should like to press the Secretary of State on the answer that he gave earlier on Warm Front. Does he think that there is a potential conflict of interest while eaga is effectively allowed to award itself contracts for Warm Front grants? What steps is he taking to put a stop to that practice?

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who recently came to see me personally to talk about that issue. Among the changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned was ensuring that eaga is put on the same footing as any other contractor in having to bid competitively for contracts under Warm Front, in the same way as anybody else.

Tony Baldry: Will the Secretary of State make every effort to republish and promulgate the conclusions of the Stern review, which make very clear the huge cost to our children and grandchildren if we do not take action now to tackle climate change? The costs will be huge and fall heavily on future generations.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that is central to this debate. We need to be open about the fact that there are costs to acting on climate change, but we know that the costs of not acting would be greater. That central conclusion of the Stern report is important in shaping the climate change debate, and he is right that we should emphasise it.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State look closely at what is happening in terms of sustainability and progressive environmental policies in Kirklees council, in whose area my constituency sits? Will he particularly examine the warm zone initiative, which is so successful that many local authorities are coming to look at it? May I invite him to come and look at it himself?

Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to answer for himself on whether he can go and look at that, but many of us have had conversations with Kirklees council and visited it, because there is no question but that it has been exemplary and pioneered work involving local government, energy companies and community groups all working together to get community solutions. It was part of the inspiration behind the community energy saving programme, which the Government recently rolled out and which is going extremely well. The programme will provide £350 million of funding in order that we get such real community endeavours off the ground on the same basis as Kirklees' pioneering warm zones.

Ann Winterton: Recent polls show that the British public have had a dramatic change of mind about whether climate change is man-made. Will the Government change their mind about the huge subsidies for land-based wind farms, which are not only ineffective but despoil the countryside?

Edward Miliband: No, we will not. Here we see what people worry about in relation to the Conservative party: an unchanged party, with people saying that climate change does not exist and that we should not go ahead with onshore wind. So no, Labour will not follow the hon. Lady's advice.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be aware that progress is being made in the administration of Bowater in my constituency. Energy is a huge component part of the problem, so will he assure me that his Department will work with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to help facilitate the recovery of the business on that site?

David Kidney: As my hon. Friend knows, I take a keen interest in this issue, and I stand ready to help him in any way I possibly can.

Michael Fabricant: As Britain is now a net importer of gas, is the Secretary of State happy with the fact that we have only 16 days of gas storage, compared with 99 days in Germany and 122 days in France?

Edward Miliband: I expect better from the hon. Gentleman.  [Interruption.]Perhaps I should not expect better. The truth is that, as I said in our earlier discussion, the National Grid has clearly said that those numbers are meaningless, because they do not take account of our indigenous supplies. It is really important to emphasise the role that our indigenous supplies continue to play along with imports and storage.

Alan Whitehead: Now that the Energy Bill, which relates particularly to carbon capture and storage, has passed all its stages in this House, will my right hon. Friend talk urgently to the Crown Estate and the energy companies operating in the North sea about the continuity of maintenance of pipelines between oil and gas extraction and carbon storage?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and we are in dialogue with the Crown Estate about a whole range of issues including the one to which he draws attention. I thank him for his role in the Bill, and the important thing now is to get it on the statute book as soon as possible.

Business of the House

George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be:
	Monday 1 March-Opposition day (half-day) (4th allotted day-1st part). There will be a debate on the Government's record on defence. This debate will arise on an Opposition motion, followed by a motion relating to the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2010, followed by a motion relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2010.
	Tuesday 2 March-Motion to approve a Money Resolution on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
	Wednesday 3 March-Second Reading of the Bribery Bill [ Lords].
	Thursday 4 March-Motion to approve a statutory instrument, followed by consideration of a procedural motion, followed by proceedings on House business.
	Friday 5 March-Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 8 March will include:
	Monday 8 March-Remaining stages of the Crime and Security Bill.
	Tuesday 9 March-Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 10 March-Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on alcohol, followed by a debate on taxes and charges on road users. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	 [ The  details are as follows:  Taxes and charges on road users: 6th Report from the Transport Committee of Session 2008-09, HC 103; and Government response-6th special report of Session 2008-09, HC 995; and  Alcohol: 1 st Report from the Health Committee, HC 151 .]
	At 7.00 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Thursday 11 March-Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [ Lords].
	Friday 12 March-Private Members' Bills.

George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business.
	On oral questions, how satisfied is the right hon. and learned Lady that the shuffle is entirely random? What are the odds, as happened in today's Question Time, of no Labour Back Benchers being selected for one of the first 16 questions, nor a single topical question to the Energy Secretary? Have Government Back Benchers simply given up?
	On the business for next Thursday, can the Leader of the House clarify today what the Deputy Leader of the House refused to clarify on Monday-namely, that all of the recommendations in the Wright report that need a decision by the House will be tabled, and that she will do that by Monday at the latest, so that we can table the necessary amendments? Does she agree that it would be desirable for the Back-Bench business committee to be up and running at the beginning of the next Parliament? Would not a clear answer to those questions disperse the "climate of suspicion" to which she referred on Monday? Related to that, will she tell us how she intends to timetable Thursday between debates and votes? The House will want to know that there will be enough time to vote on the remaining resolutions and the selected amendments.
	May we have a debate on the Procedure Committee's final report on the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers? As the right hon. and learned Lady will appreciate, decisions on that need to be made before the beginning of the next Parliament.
	On elections, may we have a debate on the by-elections process? This week, the Electoral Commission delivered a stinging report on the Government for their unnecessary delay in scheduling the election in Glasgow, North-East. Given that there is currently a similar delay for voters in North-West Leicestershire, is it not time for the House to consider a mandatory time limit within which by-elections are held, so that we can avoid the Government placing electoral advantage over the constitutional rights of citizens to be represented here?
	Turning to next Thursday, may we have an extra day on the remaining stages of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill? That is a huge piece of legislation, to which a great deal has been added-more Government amendments are expected-and 28 clauses, which is approximately one third of the Bill, have not been debated at all. Given the right hon. and learned Lady's commitment to ensure that the House has better powers of scrutiny, would not that be a good place to start?
	Where is the annual debate on international development? I raised that with the right hon. and learned Lady at the last business questions and she said there would be one "as soon as possible." That debate is still not on the radar, and we need it not least so that we can debate the lessons to be learned from the tragedy in Haiti.
	Related to that, may we have a debate in Government time on Afghanistan and our overseas commitments? The right hon. and learned Lady has consistently said that the House should have opportunities to debate defence, but we have not had one of the four defence debates to which we are entitled in each Session. Next Monday, the Opposition are having to give up one of their Opposition days to debate defence, at a time when the country is at war. When are the Government going to make time to debate such issues?
	What has happened to the debate on international women's day? Although that falls on 8 March and a debate is scheduled in another place, there is no sign of it in our provisional business. I cannot believe that the Leader of the House plans to overlook that important event.
	Finally, it will come as no surprise if I ask again for the dates of the Easter recess. We keep being told that this will be announced in the usual way, but it is rather unusual-with just 26 working days until Good Friday-for us to be kept in the dark. May I repeat my assumption that the House rises on 1 April and does not return, having listened to the Chancellor's final Budget on 24 March? Or can the right hon. and learned Lady tell us otherwise?

Harriet Harman: The shuffle for oral questions is of course completely random, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not suggesting otherwise. He can see the figures: Labour Members tabled questions, but they did not get called up first and that is the way that these things sometimes work. I am sure he would not wish to cast any aspersions on those who do the selections.
	This afternoon, I hope that the Government will re-table the remaining motions on the Wright Committee recommendations that did not get passed on Monday. They will all be on the Order Paper as substantive motions for hon. Members to vote on next Thursday 4 March. Hon. Members will also be able to table amendments to those motions. I have looked at the proposals in the Committee's report and I am satisfied that should Members wish to table amendments to any of the remaining recommendations, they will be able to vote on them next Thursday. It does not matter how an issue comes to the House for a vote, whether it is through Government motion or an amendment tabled by an hon. Member that is selected by Mr. Speaker. The issue is whether, if hon. Members wish to vote on a Wright Committee proposal, they will have the opportunity to do so. I am satisfied that if hon. Members wish to vote on any recommendation from the Wright Committee, all that they have to do is table an amendment to the motions that we will table this afternoon and they will have that vote. I hope that that lays hon. Members' fears to rest.
	I mentioned the climate of suspicion in order to say that it was unwarranted. Sometimes, people like to prove their struggle by struggling against something. If they have to feel that they are struggling against me to make these changes, they can go ahead, but that is not the reality of the situation. I can assure hon. Members that the reality is that all of the recommendations by the Wright Committee will be available to be voted on, if hon. Members wish to do so, because all that they have to do is table amendments to them- [ Interruption. ] I can hear hon. Members muttering, and I understand their concern, because they are worried that the amendments will not be selected. There will be an opportunity for Mr. Speaker to reassure the House on that basis, so that hon. Members know what will be selected and that they will have the opportunity to vote. Am I really likely to say this week in and week out and then suddenly discover, on 4 March, that- [ Interruption. ] Well, as I have asked that question and got the wrong answer, I shall answer it myself. I would not be standing here saying what will happen if I thought that there was any chance that it would not. It is all going to be fine, and hon. Members just need to turn up and vote for it- [ Interruption. ] The position is clear.
	On the question of the Back Bench business committee, the shadow Leader of the House said that he would like it to be ready to be up and running after the general election. In fact, the Wright Committee proposes that we should agree in principle and refer it to the Procedure Committee, so that it can work out all the Standing Orders, so that the committee is ready to be implemented immediately by the new Parliament. Indeed, we picked up that Wright Committee proposal-it forms the basis of our substantive motion-and the committee will be ready to be up and running if, next Thursday, we pass the resolution that I have tabled. It will then go to the Procedure Committee, which will no doubt do its work in its admirable and prompt way.
	On the timetabling of business next Thursday, we have had many hours of debate on the substance of the Wright Committee report: we had a full day's debate on Monday; we have had two Adjournment debates; I have spoken about it often; and we have discussed it at business questions. We have had more than eight hours in debating time alone. In my view, we have debated the Wright Committee report enough-what we need is some voting and decision making. As I set out, we debated it on Monday, and the voting will be next Thursday.
	We will have a procedural motion. When I table it, Members will see that they can spend their time either debating it or having a further discussion on the Wright Committee proposals-I am not bothered either way.  [Interruption.] No, I think that we have had enough debate. I am not bothered, but I am concerned that we actually get to the voting. About 90 minutes after we start the debate on the procedural motion, we shall start voting, so that we conclude all the votes on the Wright Committee substantive motions and the amendments at a reasonable time on Thursday. Then hon. Members can return to their constituencies knowing-I hope-that they have improved how the House works.
	It is very likely that we will be tabling motions arising out of the Wright Committee proposals for the election of Deputy Speakers-that issue has been in the pipeline for some time.
	On the question of by-elections, I think that we have an excellent new Member for Glasgow, North-East. He is very often in his place in the House-he is not in it today, but he is an active Member of the House, as well as an active constituency MP. I think, therefore, that we had a really excellent result in that by-election. We also had the tragic loss of the Member for North-West Leicestershire. Let us bear in mind that there will be a general election shortly.  [Interruption.] Surely the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is not suggesting that we go through the expense of a by-election immediately in advance of a general election- [Interruption.] Well, if he is, I do not agree with him. If that is what he really believes, why does he not come forward with an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill? He has not tabled any amendments at any stage of that Bill to give effect to what he says he is so passionate about. Suddenly he has discovered that he is passionately in favour of it, but he has never done anything about it in the past, so I take that to be hot air.
	On an international women's day debate, I welcome the commitment that the shadow Leader of the House has expressed to such a day, and I think that he will find that it might be topical come next week.  [Interruption.] That was a hint, but I shall leave hon. Members to work it out.
	On international development, there will be a debate shortly on that-I have not overlooked it. We have had many days' debate on defence-they run throughout the year-and if Conservative Members choose to table an additional day's debate on that for their Opposition day, that is entirely a matter for them.
	On my announcements for House business, I announced the firm business today for next week and the provisional business for the week after, and that is the usual way of doing things.

David Heath: I have a terrible memory, so I am sure that I have simply forgotten the point in the Wright Committee report suggesting that the Back-Bench business committee should be referred first to the Procedure Committee for consideration. However, given that the Leader of the House has asserted that it is the case, she will be able to remind me of exactly where that suggestion comes in the report.
	May we have a statement from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Equitable Life? We had an extraordinarily well attended meeting on the subject yesterday, at which we learned some things to the benefit of Equitable Life policyholders-that there would be no means test and that it is likely that estates will benefit-but we failed to get any sense of a clear timetable on the Government finally resolving this important issue. What is more, we also heard from the current chief executive of Equitable Life, Chris Wiscarson, that he has repeatedly sought a meeting with the Treasury, but has received no response. That really is an extraordinary state of affairs, so I hope that the Chief Secretary will come to the House and explain himself.
	While the Chief Secretary is here, I wonder whether we might have, not so much a statement or a debate, but probably more of a seminar, for those of us who are rather slow on such matters, because I simply cannot understand how the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is 84 per cent. owned by the UK taxpayer, can announce, simultaneously, losses of £3.6 billion and bonuses to its staff of £1.3 billion. That is the sort of arithmetic that I simply cannot understand. Perhaps we can have it explained why the Government are such a poor safeguarder of the national interest as not to force a wholly owned subsidiary-the Royal Bank of Scotland-to do what we want it to do, which is to be fair to people across the country.
	May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on our relations with Latin America? We are also concerned about the heightening of tension with Argentina and the support for the Argentine position expressed by many south American countries. We ought to be made aware of the Government's current view.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the shadow Leader of the House, mentioned the Report stage of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. Every time we point out the difficulties of Report stages, the Leader of the House tells us that everything is fine. We have had two Report stages of Bills this week-on the Children, Schools and Families Bill and the Energy Bill-when 18 new clauses and 49 amendments, of which 29 were Government amendments, went completely undebated in the Chamber and were passed, unheard and unseen, to another place. That is not how we should be doing business. How many times do we have to say that?
	Lastly, let me refer the Leader of the House to that seminal document "The Governance of Britain", the Green Paper that was going to introduce substantial reforms to how this House works. Let me take her back to the recommendation in paragraph 35:
	"The Government believes that the convention should be changed so that the Prime Minister is required to seek the approval of the House of Commons before asking the Monarch for a dissolution."
	Can we know when that motion will be tabled, and will she confirm that we shall have a debate before a request for a dissolution is passed by the Commons?

Simon Hughes: And a vote.

David Heath: And, as my hon. Friend says, will the Leader of the House also confirm that we shall have a vote?

Harriet Harman: As for the Back-Bench business committee, let me remind the House that our motion, which has been on the Order Paper for some weeks and which will be voted on next Thursday, says that
	"this House approves recommendation 17 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons...and looks forward to the House being offered the opportunity within 10 sitting weeks of the beginning of the next session of Parliament"-
	so it is not time unlimited-
	"to establish a backbench business committee and a new category of backbench business, in the light of further consideration by the Procedure Committee."
	We have tabled- [ Interruption . ] Indeed, it is our motion. We have therefore tabled a motion for the approval of recommendation 17, on setting up the committee, as well as for a timetable for that, so it is not as though the proposal is being kicked into the long grass.
	If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is not the right way to frame the proposal, he can table an amendment. He does not need to look to me for any further progress; he can do something himself. That is the whole point about House business. We have tabled a substantive motion. I think that it is a good substantive motion, but if he wants to amend it, he can amend it however he likes. He does not need to worry about what my view is: there is a free vote, and, whatever he tables, hon. Members will look at it and decide whether they support it.
	On the second point, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right: what I said was wrong, but I am still right as to the general- [ Interruption. ] There was a technical error in what I said, but overall I am still right. However, he might well be right that the House wants to firm it up; and if it does, he can go ahead.
	Equitable Life remains an important issue-there was a meeting in the House yesterday-and work on it is ongoing.
	As for the RBS bonuses, the hon. Gentleman will know that, following the international credit crisis, we are concerned to ensure, first, that all the public money that we put in-and that had to be put in-to shore up the banks and stop them collapsing, as well as stopping the disastrous effect that that would have had on depositors and wider confidence in the economy, should be paid back. Ultimately, of course, the money should all be paid back, which is why we are opposed to selling off discount shares. Secondly, those institutions should ensure that they lend to businesses and approve mortgages-that is a priority, as well as paying back-and that they have a remuneration scheme that discourages short-termism and risk.
	That is why we have worked through the Financial Services Authority regime and, internationally, through the G20 and the European Union, for an international system that ensures a more long-termist approach, rather than a short-term, risk-taking approach, as well as to help with the deficit, which has been caused by the financial crisis. The deficit is not the cause of the financial problems in the economy; it is the result of them. In order to help pay that back, we have had to increase taxes, which we have done in two ways. First, all income over £150,000 will be subject to a 50 per cent. tax rate. Secondly, all banks thinking of paying bonuses will have to pay a 50 per cent. tax on that bonus pool before they pay out a single penny on bonuses. That is our approach, and it has been set out by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.
	As for the Report stages of Bills, again I say to the hon. Gentleman that he has been concerned-he has expressed those concerns consistently over the months and years-but he and his hon. Friends are in a position to table amendments to our resolutions; and, if the House approves a different way of dealing with things, that will be how we deal with them in future.
	As for the Falkland Islands, we are absolutely clear: there is self-determination for the people of the Falklands. Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions are next week, when the hon. Gentleman can ask more questions about the issue of the Foreign Secretary, if he would like to.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thirty right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, so brief questions and brief answers are required if I am to have any chance of accommodating everybody.

Rosie Cooper: Returning to the mundane, will the Leader of the House consider setting time aside for a debate on the gritting performance of local authorities? Lancashire county council, which failed to grit bus routes, contrasts with Westminster council, which I understand wants to know from its residents whether their pavements were gritted quickly enough. People throughout the country are bemused that, in the 21st century, snow should bring their communities to a standstill and that their lives should be put at risk on roads that are ungritted.

Harriet Harman: As the weather is still bad, there is concern not only about what happened in the depth of the winter, but about what might continue to happen to businesses and to all road users. I will raise the matter with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport, which are working together on this, and get my hon. Friend an answer to what is no doubt a frustrating issue for all the constituents whom she so excellently represents-namely, the really poor performance of Lancashire county council.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House be prepared to tell us whether she would support an amendment that would prevent the programming of amendments and new clauses debated on Report? Also, as chairman of the United Kingdom-Falkland Islands all-party parliamentary group, may I request that a Minister appear before the House next week to update us on the tensions in the south Atlantic?

Harriet Harman: There will be Foreign Office questions next week, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman put his question about the Falkland Islands to the Foreign Secretary at that time. As far as the-oh God! I can't remember what his first question was.  [ Interruption. ] Oh, yes; amendments. Some hon. Members want more programming because they want to be sure that the House will reach- [ Interruption. ] Well, if hon. Members have a solution to this, they need do no more than table amendments to the resolutions that will be before the House next Thursday.

Gordon Prentice: Now that Commander Ali Dizaei has been convicted and jailed, may we have a statement as soon as possible on how senior police officers in the Met are selected and appointed, and on the question of whether the commissioner should not have a much greater role in that?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has a team in which he has full confidence, and the whole team needs to be properly accountable to the people of London. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the team of police and prosecutors who made sure that justice was done in the case of Ali Dizaei.

Peter Luff: The Leader of the House will know that the schools funding formula discriminates seriously against counties such as Worcestershire. May we have an urgent statement on the reasons for the delay in the publication of the consultation document on the funding formula review, which was expected last month?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to write directly to the hon. Gentleman.

Janet Anderson: May I urge my right hon. and learned Friend, in her role as Leader of the House, to take a close look at the mptweets website, which has been set up by a group called The Year of Collaboration? It has set up an individual Twitter account in the names of every MP in the north-west, so our constituents now believe that they are twittering with us when, in fact, we have nothing whatever to do with the site.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to public attention. This is a real problem, and I will see what Ministers might be able to do about it. In fact, my own Twitter account was hacked into this week-my hon. Friend did not know this; hers was not a planted question-and a tweet purportedly sent by me was widely circulated. I can assure everyone that it was not from me. I got a response to that bogus tweet from the former shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), who is now the shadow Prisons Minister. I need to get back to him and tell him that the tweet was not from me. I would never send a tweet like that. There is a real issue here, and we need to sort it out.

Nigel Evans: We already know what too many twitters make, don't we? Moving swiftly on, may we have a debate on the future of community hospitals? At the end of 2008, the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust promised a new hospital for Clitheroe and, last May, found £15.5 million to spend on it. I am therefore baffled as to why it announced in November that the project was frozen because it did not have the money. Community hospitals are vital to this country, and Clitheroe deserves its hospital. Please may we have a debate on this issue?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we remain committed to improving health care, because we believe that investment in public services is not a millstone round the neck of the economy, and that it actually provides vital public services such as health care. We will ensure that we pay down the deficit, halving it over the next four years, without harming vital front-line services such as his community hospital. I do not think that he could be reassured in that way by the position taken by his own Front Benchers.

Keith Vaz: In 2004, Robin Singh applied for asylum, and I made vigorous representations on his behalf. However, he was deported. He has now been kidnapped by people in Pakistan associated with the Taliban, and they are demanding a ransom of £100,000. What can the Government do to help?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Foreign Secretary to look into this matter right away, and to contact my right hon. Friend. May I also express every sympathy to the Singh family, who must be besides themselves with anxiety? I will ask the Foreign Office to do everything that it can to help.

John Leech: Will the Leader of the House urge her ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to bring forward the statement on rolling stock provision? Northern Rail was originally promised up to 200 new carriages, but there is now great uncertainty about how many it will get and when it will get them.

Harriet Harman: There is a debate on railways this afternoon in Westminster Hall. It will deal with rail fares and franchises, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to raise this matter there.

David Drew: In April this year, there will be elections in Sudan if all goes according to plan. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on Sudan as those elections lead up to the referendum in 2011 on whether the south should secede? The all-party parliamentary group on Sudan has just conducted an inquiry into how the elections are going, and into all the possible repercussions involved, and the subject would be well worth a debate, given all the time, effort and money that the British Government have invested in Sudan.

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members who play a part in the all-party group on Sudan. In the first instance, he should perhaps raise this question with the Foreign Secretary at Foreign Office questions next week.

Roger Gale: Before Parliament is dissolved for the general election, will the Leader of the House find Government time in which we can debate the embarrassing infringement procedures being taken against the Government of the United Kingdom by the European Commission in respect of the Government's failure to pay sick and elderly UK citizens the disability living allowance to which the European Court of Justice says they are entitled?

Harriet Harman: I will look into that and get the relevant Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. and learned Friend might well have heard of the recent tragic murder of a Sikh shopkeeper in my constituency. He was a much-loved and respected member of our community and of the Sikh community. Would it be appropriate to have a debate in the House on the value of small shops and shopkeepers, and of small shopping centres? Is it not about time we stood up for small shops and shopkeepers against the Tescos and the Asdas that want to drive them all out of business?

Harriet Harman: First, may I express my sincere condolences to the family on that tragic loss of life? I know that it has been felt not only by the man's immediate family but by the whole neighbourhood. I pay tribute to the people from the local pub who went to his aid. This is obviously a matter for the police authorities to investigate, but on the question of support for small shopkeepers, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Communities and Local Government take every possible step to support the amenity provided by small corner shops in local communities and neighbourhoods.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate on housing provision for the disabled? Last week, I opened an excellent house that had been retrofitted by the charity Aspire. Two important points were made to me at the time. First, there is a shortfall of 300,000 homes for the disabled in the UK at the moment. Secondly, most of the expensive cost of retrofitting could be avoided if only developers were more mindful of the disabled when designing houses.

Harriet Harman: Indeed. The Equality Bill, which is currently being considered by the House of Lords, includes a legal duty, as part of the public sector's combined legal duty, to ensure that it tackles discrimination against, and promotes equality of opportunity for, disabled people. Therefore, when making planning decisions and giving planning approval, that must be at the forefront of the minds of those concerned. I hope I can count on the hon. Gentleman's support the next time I am criticised for political correctness because of my support for the Equality Bill. I also hope I can count on his support in relation to public spending, because provision for disabled people and for their housing costs money. Although we must get the deficit down, we must keep ensuring that we make progress towards equality of opportunity for disabled people.

Denis MacShane: Can we have an early debate on parliamentary staff? If I hired someone who had worked with an ex-convict to carry out criminal activities, including bribing police officers, breaking into bank accounts and obtaining secret telephone conversations, any such gentleman would quickly have his pass taken off him, yet Mr. Andy Coulson stands accused in  The Guardian today of all those activities. Surely it is time to remove the parliamentary pass from that gentleman, so that he cannot roam around the Westminster precincts.

Harriet Harman: All hon. Members, on both sides of the House, ought to be very concerned about the issues raised in the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, to which I assume my right hon. Friend refers. The issues raised certainly reflect quite sharply on those involved, including Andy Coulson, the Leader of the Opposition's press secretary.

Patrick Cormack: As the Leader of the House has made the extraordinary proposition that Members should be urged to table amendments, which she herself has decided will not be debated, will she explain the extraordinary logic of wanting to remove the title of Chairman but keep the title of Chairman of Ways and Means, as well as, presumably, her own name?

Harriet Harman: Contrary to popular myth, the issue of the change from Chairman to Chair came out of the Wright Committee, of which I was not a member. It was not my proposal, but made in the Wright Committee report. We have tabled it for the House to vote on, and I would certainly vote for it. As for recommendations that the hon. Gentleman says I have decided will not be available to be voted on, there are none. I have explained the process: we have tabled the motion; he can table an amendment, as can any other Member, and if it relates to the Wright Committee report, it will no doubt be selectable and able to be voted on. Come next Thursday, we will all be able to vote on the matter.

Andrew Miller: Many jobs have been created and protected in my constituency, with a great deal of partnership working. One of the key partners has been the Northwest Regional Development Agency, which is working with me on a project to rescue Bowater from administration. Can we have a debate on the future of regional development agencies and their importance in helping to create and develop jobs in our communities?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend will be able to raise the issue of the Northwest Regional Development Agency in Business, Innovation and Skills questions next week, and he will no doubt receive the answer from the Minister concerned that we greatly value the work of regional development agencies, particularly in the north-west. We remain strongly committed to them, and are determined that they will be protected from the Opposition's threat of abolition.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a statement next week on the security situation in Northern Ireland, in view of the very serious recent incident in Newry and other incidents that demonstrate the growing threat from so-called dissident republican terrorists? Such a statement would allow us to explore what the Government are doing to meet that threat-not only to life and limb but to political stability in the Province.

Harriet Harman: We all understand the concern felt across all political parties in Northern Ireland, and above all in all parts of every community in Northern Ireland, where people want a continuation of peace and prosperity and of more control over their own affairs. They do not want that to be derailed by a small number of criminals through terrorism. I pay tribute to all those who worked hard to protect people and to ensure the minimum loss of life. However, we cannot be complacent, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, all colleagues in the House and those in the Northern Ireland authorities will play their part to ensure that peace and prosperity continue.

Ian Cawsey: My right hon. and learned Friend is a supporter of the music industry, so she may share concerns about the slow progress of the Digital Economy Bill in the other place. Will she use her good offices to ensure that the House gets the opportunity to debate the matter, and that the Bill is given every opportunity to get on to the statute book before the election? I am only too aware that I must again declare my interest as a member of MP4, the world's only parliamentary rock band. I know that you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the excellent charity Help for Heroes will be the beneficiaries of proceeds from our album "Cross Party", which will be released on 18 March.

Harriet Harman: I think MP4 is a fantastic group with a great future, and I agree with my hon. Friend that the Digital Economy Bill is very important. The Prime Minister has spoken about the great prospects for our digital and creative industries, green technologies, advanced manufacturing and new information technology. We must invest in those new industries and jobs, so we will provide every support. He can raise the matter at Culture, Media and Sport questions next week, and, if he wants, in Business, Innovation and Skills questions, too.

Richard Ottaway: We could debate for a long time whether this morning's clarification of the guidelines on assisted suicide amount to a change in the law-in my opinion, they do. None the less, if they are to command widespread respect and confidence, would it not be appropriate to table a substantive motion on the guidelines to ascertain the will of the House on that change in the law?

Harriet Harman: It is not appropriate for the will of the House to be stated on that matter, because we have an independent prosecutorial system. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service, not the House, to decide who is to be prosecuted, on the basis of the evidence in each individual case. To assist the prosecutorial decision whether to bring a charge and whether the case passes the threshold for prosecution-sufficiency of evidence and whether it is in the public interest-there are guidelines, which the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS draw up, having engaged in the necessary consultation. The DPP and the CPS have done the consultation and are drawing up the guidelines, and a copy will no doubt be laid in the House of Commons Library. It is not for us to investigate crime or to decide whom to prosecute. It is for us to decide the law. We have decided the law, and the law has not changed.

David Winnick: Arising from that point, is it not the case that the DPP has been acting on instructions from the court, which has had a number of cases before it and has therefore decided that guidelines should be drawn up. Although I take a somewhat different position from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), would it not be useful to have a debate on the subject nevertheless? The last one was in Westminster Hall on 11 November 2008. In view of the controversy about assisted suicide, we should have a debate in the Chamber in the near future.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the DPP took the action to draw up the guidelines because he was instructed to do so by a judicial decision. There has been recent extensive debate in the House of Lords on the matter. It is some time since we debated the matter in this House. We have no plans to change the law, but it is open to hon. Members to seek opportunities to debate the matter further, either on the Adjournment in Westminster Hall or on Opposition days.

Evan Harris: I am glad that the Leader of the House has urged people who care about whether our legislation is properly scrutinised to vote next Thursday for the amendment calling for the establishment of a House Business Committee, which would provide for such scrutiny. That, however, does not help us in respect of business that is before us now. What assurance can the Leader of the House give that all new clauses tabled to the Constitutional Renewal and Governance Bill will be debated next week, and would I be right to suspect-although she always says that we should not be suspicious-that the new clause that I have tabled to end discrimination against women in the royal succession, which I thought she supported, might not see the light of debate?

Harriet Harman: We have said on a number of occasions that the ending of discrimination in the succession is being discussed with other Commonwealth countries. The Queen is, of course, not only the Head of State of this country, but Queen of the Commonwealth countries.
	I suggest that the hon. Gentleman discuss the timing of clauses and new proposals in relation to the remaining stages of the Constitutional Renewal and Governance Bill with the ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice.

Douglas Hogg: May we have an early debate on the failure of the regulators in the health service to pick up serious failings in hospitals? That has happened on a number of occasions in the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, for instance. It is plain that the system is not sufficiently sensitive to detect problems. The statement was not enough; we now need a full debate.

Harriet Harman: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, a statement was made about the matter on Wednesday, and the Prime Minister responded to questions about it during Prime Minister's Question Time. A great deal of action is being taken as a result of the lessons learned from the tragic Staffordshire hospital case. I add my sympathy to all who have suffered as a result of bad treatment at the hospital, and send my condolences to the families of those who have died as a result of bad treatment. It is hard enough to face a family tragedy without feeling that it was unnecessary. Nothing can bring back the loved ones of all the people who have suffered so badly, but it may be of some comfort to them if they can be absolutely confident that lessons have really been learned so that this can never happen again.

David Tredinnick: The Leader of the House may be aware of a petition presented at No. 10 yesterday by myself and others, entitled "Homeopathy worked for me" and signed by 25,000 people. Given that, and given the controversial report published this week by the Select Committee on Science and Technology-which had failed to call as witnesses members of the Society of Homeopaths, doctors who practise homeopathy, and primary care trusts which commission it-may we have an urgent debate on the subject?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman might wish to raise the subject on the Adjournment.

Andrew MacKay: May I return the Leader of the House to the issue of the growing tensions in the south Atlantic? Surely it is not sufficient to depend on the vagaries of Foreign Office questions next week in order to hear what Ministers have to say. Will the Leader of the House think again, and agree that the Foreign Secretary should make a statement to the House? She knows as well as anyone else what can happen when a desperate leader who is likely to lose the next election-such as President Kirchner-can do in desperate circumstances.

Harriet Harman: I shall leave aside the rather stupid ending to the right hon. Gentleman's question. The UK Government's position in relation to the Falklands has remained the position of successive UK Governments, and I am sure that it will not change in the future. Our view is that the sovereignty of the Falklands is simply not an issue. How many times does that have to be said? The Foreign Secretary has made the position absolutely clear, and I cannot imagine that any further light would be shed on the matter if he made an oral or written statement. I shall look through the statements that have been made recently and send copies to the right hon. Gentleman, but he should not do anyone a disservice by implying that there will be some sort of change of approach, because there will not be.

Mark Pritchard: Notwithstanding her earlier protestations, will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on assisted dying? It is Parliament that writes laws, and it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts to interpret those laws. There is real concern out in the community that the House is not having a say about the change in the law. People are very concerned about the possibility that it represents a new back door to euthanasia in the United Kingdom.

Harriet Harman: It is clearly our view that there has been no change in the law, and the Government have no proposals to introduce a change in the law. I will look into when the House last had an opportunity to debate the issue, and will consider, with my colleagues, whether there is an opportunity for a further debate on it. Even if such a debate takes place, however, I do not think that there will be any question of the Government's proposing legislation. We have new guidelines under an order of the court issued by the DPP, and I think that the position is clear. Nevertheless, the House may well wish to debate the issue, and I shall have another look at it.

Hugo Swire: May we have an urgent statement on the financial fiasco surrounding the Learning and Skills Council before it is wound up and replaced next month by the Skills Funding Agency? It is of great concern throughout the House-not least to the Leader of the House's Cabinet colleague, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), and to me-that there is to be the first "hard" federation between Exeter college and Bicton college in my constituency. The LSC has been told that it will have to borrow £3 million and make a loan of £1 million, and it will withdraw its support for Bicton by the end of March unless that happens. May we have an urgent statement to clarify what is going on?

Harriet Harman: I will ask the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to write the hon. Gentleman a letter about the issues involving the Learning and Skills Council in his constituency.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May we have a debate on tertiary and sixth-form colleges? The Government recently cut the support grant for capital projects, which was roughly 15 per cent. That means that the colleges cannot reclaim VAT, and it is affecting capital programmes at all sixth-form and tertiary colleges throughout the United Kingdom. If the situation continues, the training of younger people will be stymied, because the colleges cannot spend the capital.

Harriet Harman: I will ask the relevant Ministers to write to the hon. Gentleman. However, I could have looked into the matter and given him a substantive answer if he had given me a call or popped into the office to let me know that he was going to ask his question.

Andrew Pelling: Can the Leader of the House tell me where it would be best to raise the issue of the report published this week by members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, headed by Dr. Adrienne Key? Dr. Key claims that there is a real link between anorexia and the size of models depicted in the media, and has suggested the establishment of a body consisting of the Government, physicians, media representatives and advertisers to consider possible guidelines on this important issue.

Harriet Harman: We take an interest in the matter, because it involves serious public health issues. It chiefly concerns the Department of Health, but it is covered to some extent by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it, and it has also been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). I will let the hon. Gentleman know whether it will be possible for him to make any further progress, in collaboration with other Members and the Government.

Mr. Speaker: Last but certainly not least, I call Mr. Bone.

Peter Bone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In relation to next week's business, will the even-tempered and tranquil Deputy Prime Minister recommend to the Prime Minister that he attend an important meeting of an all-party parliamentary group entitled "Preventing workplace harassment and violence", or might that just ruin her life?

Harriet Harman: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman's question was not worth waiting for. He is such a disappointment sometimes. I still have not given up hope: I am sure that somewhere inside him is what we all want to hear. However, I am afraid we were not able to hear it today.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I want to acquaint the House with some information that I have received. I have received a report from the Tellers for the Ayes in the Division at 7 o'clock last night on alternative investment fund managers, the hon. Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy). The number of Aye votes was erroneously reported as 272, instead of 271. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the  Journal accordingly-Ayes 271; Noes 63.

Points of Order

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will recognise, the Wright Committee report is going to affect how Parliament develops for some years to come, so the votes next week are of considerable importance. I was, therefore, very disturbed when the Leader of House suggested that, although she was urging Members to table amendments, there would not be adequate time to debate any of those amendments. The whole purpose of an amendment is to allow the Member who has tabled it to explain why he or she does or does not want a particular thing to happen, and for that matter then to be discussed. I therefore submit that it is a travesty of parliamentary procedure if there is not a reasonable amount of time to debate amendments, especially amendments urged for by the Leader of the House and selected by you, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything that you can do in your role as protector of the interests and procedure of this House to ensure that there is sufficient-not inordinately long, but at least some-time to debate substantive amendments?

Mr. Speaker: I am happy to comment on that matter, but as the Leader of the House is present, she has an opportunity to respond, if she wishes to do so.

Harriet Harman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There were two reasons why we put on Monday's Order Paper as remaining orders of the day all the motions that were going to be tabled by the Government: so that those on which there was unanimity could go through-about 11 of the 16 did go through-and so that colleagues could see our substantive motions well in advance of Monday's debate and table amendments. Indeed, more than 130 Members did exactly that, and as a result when we had Monday's debate there were amendments, as well as the Government motions, on the Order Paper. Therefore, the context of Monday's debate was not only the Wright Committee report and the substantive motions, but the amendments that were already on the Order Paper, including those tabled by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). We will have some time for debate next week-about 90 minutes. That is enough time to discuss issues that were already within the purview of the debate on Monday, which lasted for six hours. The reality is that the hon. Gentleman should not believe that Members will not understand some of his proposals because they have not had a chance to debate them, and that therefore they might not vote for them. The truth is that we have had eight hours of debate on this, and there is no procedural issue of substance here. The point here is that we should be clear about what is on the Order Paper and get on and vote on it.

Patrick Cormack: rose-

Mr. Speaker: I do not want a prolonged exchange on this matter, but I am in a very generous mood, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to speak again, he can do so.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely grateful to you for your generosity, but this is a matter that affects the House, and it will do so for some years to come. I am prepared to accept there being 90 minutes to debate those amendments that were already on the Order Paper and that Members know about, but the Leader of the House has herself urged us this morning to table further amendments. My point is that there must be at least another 90 minutes to debate those new amendments, which none of us has seen or knows about, so we do not know how we are going to vote on them. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure-if you possibly can-that there is an extension of that 90-minute period for that purpose.

David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise the issue of the advice given by Clerks to Select Committee Chairmen. It is my belief that the advice the Clerks provided to the Science and Technology Committee Chairman was inadequate, in that the evidence taken by the Committee in its evidence check on homeopathy was biased, as they did not call representatives of the homeopathic profession and instead chose a professor who did not represent the alternative medicine world. They chose the one person who would give an answer that suited those who were in opposition.

Mr. Speaker: It is conceivable that that issue might be a proper matter for consideration by the Liaison Committee. I say very clearly to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the reason why I will not comment on this matter is that the Speaker does not comment on matters that appertain to Select Committees, including the provision of advice to such Committees. What advice was, or was not, offered by the Clerk to that Committee is a matter between that Clerk and his or her Committee. If, notwithstanding what I have just said, the hon. Gentleman remains dissatisfied and is unable to get satisfaction from the Committee, he could consider an approach to the Liaison Committee.
	Let me just come back to the issue that preoccupied the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and to which the Leader of the House has replied. I am afraid that I can add very little. The hon. Gentleman will know that I am almost invariably an enthusiast for the maximum debate. He will also know, on the strength of his 39 years and eight months of service in the House, that these are matters for the Government; the timetable is a matter for the Government and I cannot interfere with it. Moreover, I think it is fair to say, as the Leader of the House has done-it is important that people outside are conscious of this-that there has been a very substantial debate on these matters. Certainly, the amendments that were on Monday's Order Paper regularly featured in the speeches and interventions made in the debate of that day. I do not have the figures in front of me, but it is my recollection that more than 20 Members made speeches, and a further 10 or more Members intervened-in some cases quite frequently-during the debate. So the debate was very well attended and there were many contributions to it. It would always be good to have more time, but I am not sure that I can offer any, and there will be an hour and a half on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman is still dissatisfied, he can put in a plea to the Leader of the House or through the usual channels, but I am not sure that I can offer anything further.

Welsh Affairs

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Welsh Affairs.
	As we take this opportunity to debate and celebrate all that is Welsh and our pride in Wales, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from our national team's sensational last-minute victory against Scotland the other Saturday-do not write off the red team until the final whistle. By the way, I am talking about rugby and politics, not football.
	Of course, no one can deny that this year has been tough for us all-families, businesses, communities and Governments the world over. Yet, even in this difficult year, Wales has seen a number of firsts, such as our first Ashes test match and the first time that the UK Cabinet has ever met in Wales. We have showcased the very best of Wales as a great place to visit, to watch world-class sport and to do excellent business.
	The people of Wales have also resolved that the rise of racist, fascist organisations must be stopped. These far-right groups first tried it on in Swansea, but then abandoned their vile demonstration plans in Newport and Wrexham in the face of decent, concerted community action. We must not be complacent, however; wherever the so-called Welsh Defence League and the British National party threaten our decent, tolerant communities in Wales, we must all stand together to resist them. I am pleased to confirm that the first ever conference of Unite Against Fascism (Wales) will take place in Cardiff in early March, and I would welcome support from any and all parties in Wales. Together, we must prevail over the poison of racism.
	Our main task now is how we secure the recovery in Wales, and the fact that securing the recovery, rather than sliding back from recession into depression, is now on the agenda has not happened by chance. After the worst global recession for 80 years, other economies have experienced far higher levels of unemployment-Spain 19.5 per cent., France 10 per cent., Ireland 13.3 per cent., and America 9.7 per cent. The figure for Wales is 8.6 per cent.

Mark Pritchard: The Deputy First Minister of Wales, Ieuan Wyn Jones, has said that there is "no room for complacency" on unemployment figures. The Secretary of State refers to other parts of the world, but is it not a fact that the unemployment rate in other parts of the United Kingdom is 7.9 per cent., which should be compared with the 8.6 per cent. rate in Wales that he has mentioned? Thus, the comparison also needs to be made with what is happening within the United Kingdom; we should not just make the comparison with other parts of the world.

Peter Hain: I am very happy to make the comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom. As I shall describe later, if we were to examine Wales's performance now compared with what happened during the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s under the previous Conservative Government, when the recessions were not nearly as bad as this recession either within the UK or across the globe, we would find that we have done far better on employment and unemployment.

Mark Pritchard: rose-

Peter Hain: I shall come to those points in due course.
	Our Government and the Welsh Assembly Government have painstakingly secured a strong Welsh economic platform to build for the future. Until Spring 2008, Britain experienced an unprecedented period of continuous growth for more than 11 years under our Government, which saw the United Kingdom's gross domestic product grow by more than 32 per cent. since we came to power in 1997. However, the global financial implosion that followed has hit that enormous achievement for six, and the Government have had to respond, not by downing tools as Conservatives did in the 1980s and 1990s to disastrous effect in Wales, but by active intervention to fill the gap left by the collapse in private sector activity and investment.
	Fair-minded people now accept that our Government made the right choices. We saved the banking system, on which every business and household in this country depends-the Tories opposed that action, just as they opposed the fiscal stimulus package, which, among other things, has delivered a £1 billion future jobs fund. That has already created more than 9,900 job opportunities for young people across Wales, stopping them from being thrown on to the scrap heap as happened under the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s with most never to work again.
	The stimulus package has also delivered the car scrappage scheme. More than 347,000 orders have been taken since the start of the scheme, 17,350 of those in Wales, thus protecting jobs and companies in the automotive sector. It has also delivered the business support schemes, such as the time to pay arrangements, under which more than 11,100 businesses have deferred nearly £155 million of business taxes in Wales alone. That comes as a result of the action that we have taken as a Government-it is all action opposed by the Conservatives.

Lembit �pik: May I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers for the help that they have provided, first in securing Regal Fayre, which is a new company in the town of Montgomery, and secondly, in helping to save 180 jobs in the Shop Direct call centre in Newtown? It is my opinion that the Government's assistance directly contributed in a positive way to saving those jobs, and I am grateful for the assistance that he has personally provided.

Peter Hain: It is not often that we get thanked from across the Floor of the House, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those thanks. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and has properly represented them to the Government, and we have been able to help in the way that he has described. I am very pleased for the local work force that that is the case.
	We have given real support-real help for real people-requiring rises in public investment without which the Government deficit would be even higher. The irony of the Tories' opposition to our recent public investment programmes is that the very Government deficit they complain about would have been even higher had we taken their approach, because there would have been more unemployment and greater borrowing to finance people who would have been on the dole instead of in work, earning incomes and paying their taxes.

Stephen Crabb: The Secretary of State has tried to make some reassuring remarks about the size of our deficit. Our deficit is £178 billion-it is even bigger than Greece's, yet I saw that the Prime Minister was trying to lecture the Government of Greece about fiscal responsibility. There is nothing reassuring and no reason to be complacent about the size of the UK's deficit-it is a disaster for the country.

Peter Hain: Nobody, let alone members of the Cabinet, such as myself, is being complacent. My point is that if we are that concerned-as we all, including the hon. Gentleman, ought to be-about the size of the deficit, why would we make it worse? That is what the Tory policies over the past year would have done and what Tory policies over the coming year would do. If a Government closed down many more businesses and gave many more people the sack-that is what the Tories would be doing-the deficit would grow higher. Everybody understands that; it is schoolboy and schoolgirl economics. That would be a consequence of Tory policies.

Cheryl Gillan: While the right hon. Gentleman is painting such a rosy picture of Labour's time in office, could he explain why 200,000 children in Wales still live in poverty-as measured before and after housing costs in the Department for Work and Pensions report, Households Below Average Income 2007-08? Can he also explain why Save the Children claimed last month that 96,000 children in Wales are living in severe poverty under his Government?

Peter Hain: It was because we are concerned about the numbers on poverty that we set a target for abolishing child poverty just as soon as we can. What I cannot understand is how the hon. Lady's policies for cutting child tax credits and child trust funds will help with the well-being of children in Wales. After a period of disastrous increases in pensioner poverty, child poverty and poverty across the board in Wales under the Conservative Government whom she supported, we have reduced the level of poverty for pensioners and children in Wales.

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Hon. Members: A point of order?] I know that this seems odd, because I do not raise many points of order. However, it is an important matter for the historical record when a Secretary of State of Her Majesty's Government comes to the Dispatch Box and says something that is completely inaccurate. He claimed that a Conservative Government would-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mark Pritchard: He claimed that they would abolish child-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is a point of order is that when the occupant of the Chair rises any other hon. Member should resume their seat. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is wise to be sparing in his points of order, if he thinks that that constituted one-it is more a matter for debate. He has said something on the record; he must be satisfied.

Peter Hain: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman rose, because it is a matter of record what the Tory party's policies are on child trust funds, child tax credits and other such matters. The Tories were wrong on the recession, and they are wrong on the recovery. Their plans for early and savage public investment cuts would choke off the recovery. They have no plans for growth-they have only a plan for austerity.
	Our Labour Government investment has ensured that, despite the worst global economic recession in more than 80 years, we have avoided the spectre of industrial decline, long-term unemployment and run-down public services-those are the kind of problems that Welsh people lived through to such terrible effect in the 1980s and 1990s.

Albert Owen: This September, my wife and I will be celebrating our 27th anniversary. In the 1980s, we bought our first house and interest rates were 13 per cent. Mortgage rates varied in the '80s and '90s between 13 and 17 per cent., and house repossessions were at a record high. Is not the big distinction that the inflation rate is 3.5 per cent. now, not 13.5 per cent.? That lower rate not only helps couples to stay in their homes, but helps small businesses and the economy to recover.

Peter Hain: First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent 27 years of marriage? He is right to say that many people like him who bought their first house in the late 1980s were immediately plunged into negative equity as a result of the disastrous policies of the then Conservative Government. As I have said, our Labour Government investment has ensured that we have avoided the worst consequences of this recession and that employment levels and other indicators are better than they were in the 1980s and 1990s.
	Our record speaks for itself-

Cheryl Gillan: rose-

Peter Hain: May I finish this point? Our record speaks for itself. There are still 95,000 more people in work in Wales than when Labour came into office in 1997. Long-term unemployment in Wales is more than 55 per cent lower than it was in 1997, despite the recession. It is almost 70 per cent lower than it was at the height of the last home-grown recession in the 1990s. Average house prices in Wales are more than 140 per cent. higher than they were when we came to power in 1997. Repossessions in Wales are 39 per cent lower than they were in 1991. The average household has nearly £5,000 more disposable income now than in 1997 and gross value added per head in Wales has risen by 49 per cent. since 1997. In the early 1990s recession, many more businesses failed in Wales, with the company liquidation rate two and half times higher than the current rate. On that high note, I give way to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, because it gives me the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and his wife on 27 years of happy marriage. Many congratulations to them.
	It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say one thing in this place and another outside. Will he get his stories right? I believe that he said on BBC Wales online on 22 April last year that if efficiency savings had been made
	earlier on at a time of rising spending...I think
	we
	would have been in a better position to move forward.
	Which is it? Has his Administration messed up or does this wonderful picture that he is trying to paint for us now show what has happened? While I am on my feet, let me mention that he said in  The Western Mail that characterising the situation as a case of
	'nice' Labour reductions in public spending
	versus
	'nasty' Tory cutbacks would be a mistake.
	That is a mistake that he is making now.

Peter Hain: The planned Tory cutbacks would be nasty in their effect on Wales.
	The difference between a Tory Government and this Labour Government is as I have just described: repossessions are relatively low; average house prices are higher; average household income has risen; unemployment is lower; and the rate of business failures is much lower than it was during the home-grown, Tory-induced recessions of the early 1990s and early 1980s, which were unlike the global recession from which we have suffered in recent times. That is the difference between a Tory Government and this Labour Government. A Tory Government leave people on their own, and a Labour Government are on those people's side.

Philip Dunne: On the subject of business collapse, does the Secretary of State appreciate what has happened in the petrol filling station arena? More than 111 petrol filling stations have closed in the past five years as a direct result of what the Labour Administrations here and in the Assembly intend to introduce with the business rates revaluations. Increases without any transitional relief, such as that in England, are putting at risk the remaining 572 petrol stations in Wales, of which 206 are in rural areas. One of those is facing an increase in business rates of 725 per cent. How does he expect that business to survive that kind of increase?

Peter Hain: I know that there is concern about business rates and the changes in Wales, but 60 per cent. of businesses benefit from those changes according to the Welsh Assembly Government. The reasons for petrol station closures are much broader than the hon. Gentleman suggests, and not least among them are the extremely cheap prices from supermarkets. To my regret-as a result of market forces, not of action by this Government-they are forcing too many local petrol stations to close.

Roger Williams: The Secretary of State claims credit for his Government for the fact that this recession is not as acute and difficult as the last one. Individuals have made a contribution, too, by working part time and by cutting their hours. There has been a huge amount of suffering as a result of the recession, but individuals have played their part in helping. I am sure that the Secretary of State wants to congratulate them on that.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do so. I was openly arguing that the recession has been very tough for people; I said that right at the beginning. Individuals have made sacrifices such as working fewer hours and, as a result, having lower earnings, and that has helped us to get through this terrible recession, which has been a worldwide recession, in better shape than we would have been-this is my point-if we had followed the policies of the Conservative Opposition. Had they been in government, everybody in Wales would have been far worse off. That is indisputable.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I shall take one final point from the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is being very generous in giving way. I think that I might be the only person in the House who has worked in a petrol filling station-Cymmer Afan petrol station in Cymmer, where I used to live in Wales. Cymmer Afan petrol station had been there for years and was run by a wonderful family, but it closed down just before Christmas. I am shocked by the Secretary of State-I know that he has been busy celebrating his 60th birthday this week, but he should not forget that unemployment is not low in Wales, but high at 8.6 per cent. Forgive me, but I believe that the Secretary of State's complacency is breathtaking.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will find in the official record, as everyone else in the House will have noticed, that I quoted that figure of 8.6 per cent. earlier in my speech. My point was not that it was not of concern-of course it is. I represent a Welsh constituency where people have lost their jobs. My point is that without Government action and that if we had followed the Conservative prescription, which he supports, of cutting public investment-

Mark Pritchard: indicated dissent.

Peter Hain: That is what the Conservatives have said. They have said that we spent too much money on business support, job support programmes and so on over the past year. If we had taken that course, those problems would have been far worse.

Kim Howells: I thank my right hon. Friend and hope that he can now get on with the substantive part of his speech. He will recall that in the 1980s, after the terrible onslaught on our basic industries, Wales reinvented itself. The industrial areas of Wales reinvented themselves, and we will do so again. Will he tell the House something about how the Government see the way forward for breaking with the enormous dependence on the public sector? If Wales does not reinvent itself as a home for entrepreneurs, for small businesses and for high-technology industries, we will miss out on the new generation of industries in the future.

Peter Hain: I cannot agree more with my right hon. Friend. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for his long service in the House and for his excellent record as a Labour Minister and to express my personal disappointment that he is standing down, although I understand his reasons for that? This will be his last Welsh affairs debate. I agree with him absolutely. A little while ago, I made a speech in the House in which I said that we had to strengthen our private sector and could not rely on the public sector to the extent that we had. However, that requires new investment to support the new industries and businesses of the future and to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit and innovation that we need, particularly in low-carbon industries and the digital economy. That requires Government support-it does not happen on its own. Individual entrepreneurs and small businesses need to grow with Government backing, not to have that support stripped away from under their feet so that they are unable to deliver what they are capable of.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: I think I need to make a bit of progress.

Cheryl Gillan: One more time?

Peter Hain: Okay.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I want to give him the opportunity to set the record straight. I believe that I heard him say earlier that fewer companies have gone to the wall in Labour's recession. I understand that more companies have gone bust in Labour's recession than in any other recession since records began. There were 26,978 corporate compulsory liquidations and company voluntary arrangements. That information comes from the Office for National Statistics time series and the Insolvency Service's Company liquidations in England and Wales 1960 to present. Will he confirm that he did not make an error when he said that he felt that fewer companies had gone bust in this recession? I think that these statistics prove that he was wrong in this instance.

Peter Hain: What I said-I shall read again to the hon. Lady from my speech-was that in the early 1990s recession, many more businesses failed in Wales, with the company liquidation rate two and half times higher than the current rate. That is my point-not that the current rate of liquidations is acceptable or that any business failure is acceptable. Things were relatively far worse in the 1980s and 1990s, and specifically in the 1990s in that respect.
	Our action both in Westminster and in Wales has delivered real help to individuals, families and businesses across Wales, and we will continue to do that as the Welsh economy recovers. To cut off support now, as the Conservatives and right-wing commentators propose, would wreck the recovery. With oil prices rising, international volatility and the weak eurozone, and with countries such as Greece and Ireland facing serious crises, we must prevent this fragile recovery from sliding back into recession or, even worse, from causing a severe, prolonged depression.

Ann Clwyd: I know that my right hon. Friend supports the idea, as does the Prime Minister, of a Robin Hood tax on global financial transactions that would spread both benefits and risks more fairly. Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on his support for that tax?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right to say that I have supported the Robin Hood tax, as most fair-minded people have. Indeed, the extent and breadth of support for it has been interesting. It is now backed by groups right across the board, from the Salvation Army to those such as Friends of the Earth, which we would have expected to support it. That is entirely consistent with the Prime Minister's international leadership in seeking to get an international tax on financial transactions, not least to provide insurance support to prevent the banks from collapsing and having to rely on the public purse in the future. I am glad that my right hon. Friend gave me the opportunity to make those comments.
	The Tories have lost all credibility on the economy. First, they promised austerity, until they realised that that did not play well with their focus groups. Then they said they would cut the deficit further and faster, but later realised that the sums did not add up. Now they have changed tack again and all they will say is that they will make a start on cutting spending. They are making it up as they go along, giving a nod to their baying right and then a reassuring wink to their worried left. They cannot be trusted and they would deliver a decade of austerity and low growth for Wales. They would cut support to the economy, which would lead to higher unemployment, bigger welfare bills and in turn to even higher borrowing and debt. They would bury hope with pessimism and would deliver a decade of austerity rather than the decade of growth that we plan.
	In January, Britain emerged from the toughest recession since the 1930s. The growth figure, although modest, combined with the good news that unemployment in Wales fell for the first time since the recession began, means that we can be cautiously-I stress cautiously-optimistic. But things will not be easy; our priority now is to lock in the economic recovery. Access to finance from banks is still a major problem for too many businesses, especially small ones. I heard yesterday from representatives of small businesses in Cardigan whom the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) brought to see me with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). Those businesses are having difficulties with the banks. Far too many businesses are unable to get loans from banks at rates that they can afford. The banks are charging small businesses ridiculously high rates of interest, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion explained to me.

Elfyn Llwyd: I appreciate the Secretary of State's comments on this issue. We are all struggling with businesses that are unable to get reasonable credit, but was not the right time for the good Lord Myners to impose certain conditions in that regard when the deal was struck and the money was put into the banks?

Peter Hain: We have been pressing the banks. We have done so since the beginning and during negotiations that led to the support, without which the whole banking system would have collapsed. We have stressed that the priority is for the banks to get the money out into the real economy. They have spent most of the time recapitalising themselves. As the hon. Gentleman has raised this point, let me report briefly on the past couple of economic summits that have been convened by the First Minister in Wales with my support and with the participation of a wide range of groups, including businesses and trade unions. One of the most telling points that everyone accepts, given the evidence that we have received, is that local bank managers no longer have-and have not had for the past 10 to 15 years-the autonomy to take certain decisions. That applies even though some of them have built up relationships with local businesses, know them and their directors and know the health of the economy. Instead of being able to sign off loans and continue credit arrangements, they have to pass decisions up the line to someone who sits at a computer, feeds material in and then says no.

Lembit �pik: I know that it is not fashionable to do so, but I have to report two bits of good news. HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland have recently been quite helpful during detailed negotiations, but they are strapped by the recapitalisation demands on them. Nevertheless, does the Secretary of State agree that had the Conservatives been in government at the time and presided over the collapse of the banking system, there would have been no prospect whatever of economic recovery? It seems to me that that is what would have happened if they had carried out their promises at the time.

Peter Hain: Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and speaks the truth. At that really difficult moment when the whole of the banking system could have collapsed, after which people would have lost their savings and much calamity would have resulted, if the disastrous policies that the Conservatives advocated had been followed, they would have made things much worse, whereas people accept that our policies have delivered results.
	As I have said, it will not be easy to emerge from recession. We need to lock in the economic recovery, but finance from the banks is still a major problem. That is why we have committed another £500 million to the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, thereby enabling more businesses to access it. Currently, more than £33 million of loans have been offered to nearly 430 companies in Wales. Again, that support would be cut by the Conservatives.

Hywel Williams: While the Secretary of State is in a happy and optimistic mood, will he tell us whether he is happy with the bonuses being paid by RBS? I think that the figure announced this morning was £1.3 billion. Is he sanguine about that?

Peter Hain: I think that bankers have made themselves even more unpopular than politicians in recent times, and that is saying something. I do not like that level of bonuses. The chief executive of RBS has said that he is not taking a bonus. Obviously, the high bonuses for high earners have been restricted in all sorts of ways as a result of Government intervention, but the banks need to explain to the public, whose money has bailed them out, how they can possibly justify those very large bonuses. They need to give those explanations to the citizens of-in this case-Wales.
	On the banks, how can anyone take the Tories seriously when they say that they will cut the deficit further and faster, now that they are planning practically to give away bank shares? Their deficit reduction plan is a total farce. As for shares in the banks, the public rightly demand that we should focus on getting back their money-the £70 billion that was handed to the banks by the Government. We were right to bail the banks out because we had to save the banking system so that the recession did not become a prolonged depression. However, it should be obvious to everybody that any responsible Government who are really committed to cutting the deficit and getting those billions of pounds of public money back must not discount those shares but sell them at a time and in a way that will maximise their value to the taxpayer. The Conservatives have merely offered the people of Wales and the United Kingdom an irresponsible and costly political gimmick. By contrast, we have supported businesses and our intervention has avoided unemployment rising as high as many predicted it would. Unemployment in Wales has fallen slightly in the past two months, but we cannot be complacent; unemployment may rise again and every job loss is devastating for those concerned.
	We know that young people across Wales have been hit particularly hard by the recession but we will not condemn a generation to unemployment like that in the 1980s and 1990s. To prevent another generation from being lost to work we have extended the young person's guarantee so that young people receive training and support after six, rather than 12, months, to ensure they have the necessary skills for permanent worthwhile employment. That said, youth unemployment in Wales is still a quarter lower than it was at the height of the early '90s, and long-term youth unemployment is nearly two thirds lower.
	Alongside those measures, we are looking to the future. We are not cutting back, but are investing to promote growth in the new industries of the digital, low-carbon economy that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) mentioned earlier. We have used the strategic investment fund in Wales to invest in a £44 million high-performance computing institute-a world-class facility to build a world-class Wales. By giving companies in Wales improved access to the latest IT and training, we can ensure that Welsh businesses are able to compete on a global stage alongside other world-leading innovators.
	Faster growth means more people going back to work, thus cutting the costs of unemployment and cutting the deficit. If we had walked by on the other side, believing that unemployment was a price worth paying, then the deficit would be even greater and unemployment rates even higher. That is the reality of a Tory recession. We saw it in the 1980s and '90s: will they never learn?
	I say it again: Welsh citizens need a Government who are on their side, not a Government who leave them on their own. That is why we celebrate-

Stephen Crabb: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: I have given way a lot up to now, and I want to make some progress.
	That is why we celebrate, not apologise for, this 10th anniversary of Labour passing the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It remains one of this Government's proudest achievements, having benefited millions of people. The latest increase in the national minimum wage has benefited over 50,000 workers in Wales alone.
	When the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham voted against the national minimum wage, as she did-

Cheryl Gillan: indicated assent.

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady nods her head in satisfaction. Then, wages of as little as £1.20 an hour were common and legal in our constituencies. That is just £1.38 an hour in today's prices. So when she tries to say that she cares about families and people struggling to make ends meet, just imagine what it would be like to live on £1.38 an hour today, as might have been the case without the minimum wage.

Cheryl Gillan: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that sort of rhetoric is rather cheap, and that I do care about families and individuals. The minimum wage has certainly done a good job in places, but would not a minimum income have been better for families?

Mark Tami: The hon. Lady did not argue for that.

Peter Hain: She certainly did not argue for that. Is she now saying that she was wrong on the minimum wage, just as she has been, and in her current policies continues to be, so wrong on so many other things? The Leader of the Opposition said that the minimum wage
	would send unemployment straight back up,
	but Labour has delivered a rising minimum wage, and more people in work than ever before in Wales.
	We also want to take Wales forward as part of a digital Britain. The Conservatives seem ready to cast aside any broadcaster that dares to compete with Rupert Murdoch. We say that sharing a fraction of the BBC's licence fee-and it is only a tiny fraction- is necessary to help make sure that we get diversity of television news and strengthen local and national media outlets across Wales.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is muttering into her cups over there, but the Opposition are opposing our support for a new news outlet on Channel 3.
	If the Conservatives get their way and refuse to back the pilots with the funding from the licence fee that we support, there is a real danger that Channel 3 will no longer have Welsh news, and that Wales Tonight and the other news programmes that it broadcasts will be lost. That funding is only a tiny fraction of the licence fee and, as I say, it is necessary to help make sure that we get diversity of television news and strengthen local and national media outlets across Wales. We want choice for the many and not, as the Opposition would prefer, profits for their rich friends.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I apologise for interrupting. I asked the nice man sitting on his left, who seems to have an advance copy of my right hon. Friend's speech, whether he was going to deal with governance. I got the impression that he was not, and I did not want to be disappointed about not intervening to ask about it.
	As an English Member of Parliament I am very interested in governance, and hope that my right hon. Friend will address this issue. Ministers with primarily English portfolios have taken arbitrary decisions without consulting their opposite numbers in Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff. As Secretary of State for Wales, will he jealously press the Justice Secretary, who is the custodian of these matters, to ensure that that does not happen?
	By way of example, and in conclusion, I refer to the arbitrary decision of the Secretary of State for Health to abrogate and tear up the reciprocal health agreements between the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, without consulting the Health Ministers in Wales, Edinburgh or Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has got me on that one. I always admire his energy as a parliamentarian, but this Government have been an enthusiastic devolver of power. We have devolved more powers than any other Government in our history, and of course we respect the rights of Wales, Scotland and Northern, as we do those of the islands that he mentioned.
	I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham now opposes the 50p monthly levy on telephone line rentals to finance super-fast broadband everywhere in Wales. How can she justify all the not spots in Wales, and all the households and businesses there-such as those whose representatives the hon. Member for Ceredigion brought to see me yesterday-that are now unable to get broadband? How can she justify them falling even further behind while the rest of Britain forges ahead?

Adam Price: In response to the question about governance raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), the Secretary of State rightly said that he has been an enthusiastic proponent of devolution. Will he tell the House when he intends to reply to the letter written to him by his colleague the First Minister for Wales?

Peter Hain: I have replied to that letter, and on Monday I put a copy of the First Minister's letter and my reply in the Library of the House of Commons.

Lembit �pik: On broadband, I am heartened by the Government's apparent commitment to address not spots. Many of my constituents live in such areas, so will he say when they can expect to be connected to broadband? At present, they can do that by satellite, but there are some technical limitations to what they can get by that means, which is also tremendously expensive. They will be very encouraged if they can get an assurance that the Government are truly committed to funding the arrival of broadband, especially in small towns and villages such as Darowen and Staylittle.

Peter Hain: Indeed we are committed to that. It is precisely to address the future needs of the Welsh economy that the Government want businesses and residents in the small towns of the kind that he and many of us represent to have access to fast, high-quality broadband. We have proposed the levy of 50p a month on telephone line rentals to fund that. I cannot give a time scale, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, especially if he lets my office know which specific areas he is talking about.

Cheryl Gillan: Many pensioners-perhaps especially those who live on their own-are not familiar with the iPhones and other mobile telephone technology that both the Secretary of State and indeed I have. Has he calculated how many of those pensioners will be paying this levy? How many business and call centres will pay it, and would it be better for them to relocate to other places?

Peter Hain: What is the hon. Lady suggesting-that paying a UK-wide levy of only 50p extra a month should encourage residents and businesses to flee our shores wholesale? How would she address the issue? We get no policies from the Conservatives on these vital questions, whereas we have provided a practical and funded route to delivering universal broadband.

Cheryl Gillan: How many pensioners?

Peter Hain: I can take my own mother as an example. She is a Welsh pensioner, and is quite happy to pay the rental. She is on broadband, and emails and texts almost obsessively. I suppose that she is an example of a modern pensioner in Wales, and I know that she is happy to be part of the broadband revolution that the Conservatives oppose.
	Under Labour, the Welsh budget has more than doubled from under £7 billion in 1996-97 to nearly £16 billion in 2010-11-a bigger real terms rise than ever in Wales's history. The Welsh Assembly Government have opened nine new hospitals, and of course introduced free prescriptions. That policy is now under threat from the Tories, but it particularly benefits those people on low incomes or with chronic illnesses who may not have previously been eligible for free prescriptions under the complicated and outdated exemption system.
	The Welsh Assembly Government have introduced free primary school breakfasts for more than 900 schools across Wales-also a policy under threat from the Tories. Free bus travel for the over-60s and concessionary rates for people with disabilities have also been hugely successful, with more than 600,000 people benefiting from free travel. That is also under threat from the Tories. In Westminster, we are passing laws to promote equality, tackle discrimination, help vulnerable people with their energy bills, grant equal treatment for agency workers and enshrine in law for the very first time our commitment to abolish child poverty. Those policies were all resisted by the Tories. That is the role of an active Government who care, and that is a programme for a Labour Government who help the many, not a Tory party that wants to help out only a tiny few.
	People in Wales increasingly realise, when they add it all up, that they cannot afford to lose this Labour Government. The Tories would be a change that we in Wales cannot afford. Instead of proposing tax breaks for millionaires, we are protecting the most vulnerable. On average in 2009-10, as a result of our tax and benefit changes, pensioner households will be £1,500 a year better off than they would have been if the pre-1997 system had continued. On average, the poorest third of pensioner households will be £2,100 a year, or £41 a week, better off than they were under the 1997 system-due to the Government's tax and benefit changes.
	Our winter fuel payment has risen from £10 under the Tories to £250 for the over-60s, rising to £400 for the over-80s. Again, they are policies offering vital support that could well be cut under the Tories' austerity programme. Evasive and unfair: that is the Tory attitude to Wales. The shadow Chancellor, through his pay freeze, would on average cut the pay of every nurse and teacher in Wales by about £300 per year-all at a time when those at the top would receive the biggest tax breaks. Under the Tories' initial proposal for the married couple's allowance, for example, the highest earners would receive 13 times as much of the benefit as someone at the other end of the income scale. As soon as that proposal came under scrutiny, the Tories buckled, being unable to explain how a mother who was suddenly widowed would become poorer under their married tax allowance policy. They are trying to make policy with a nod and a wink.
	We will reduce the public deficit fairly by halving it within four years. We have always said that we will ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear their fair share of the burden. Those words have been borne out by actions, such as our new 50 per cent. top rate of tax, a pay freeze for top civil service earners and a one-off tax on bankers' bonuses of £25,000 or more. All those measures have been opposed by the Tories. Instead, they are sticking to their plans to give the 3,000 very richest people an extra £200,000 each in inheritance tax cuts, while delivering savage public spending cuts and a pay freeze for public sector workers.
	We have delivered on our spending review promise and increased Welsh funding by £500 million for 2010-11. That is new money, and it would not be going to Wales if the Tories had their way.

Stephen Crabb: The right hon. Gentleman sits in a Cabinet that approved a brutal cut of almost £1 billion to the higher education budget in England, meaning that many thousands of Welsh students who are hoping to study at English universities later this year will be told that they do not have a place. Indeed, they will probably go on the youth unemployment roll, so has does that benefit young people in Wales?

Peter Hain: We have asked universities to make efficiency savings, and I do not think that a brutal cut is a phrase that any vice-chancellor recognises. Indeed, one Welsh vice-chancellor told me relatively recently that he thought that the measure could be easily absorbed without any of the consequences that the hon. Gentleman describes. Interestingly, the number of people applying to and getting into universities has been rising steadily, including over the past year.
	We are in no doubt where the truth lies: the Tories would have an emergency Budget within weeks of entering power and leave Wales as the biggest casualty, with hard-working Welsh people fighting for their livelihoods. The Tories would make savage and swingeing cuts to the public services of Wales, creating a huge rise in unemployment and a collapse in businesses that supply the public sector.
	So where else would those cuts fall? The Tories cannot deliver what they promise without slashing investment in Welsh schools and hospitals, Sure Start and large projects such as launch aid for the new Airbus planes at Deeside. Since 1997, and after years of decline in our public services, we have invested in our health service, schools, infrastructure and police force. People depend on those services being well funded and efficient, and in Wales there are almost 7,300 police officers-700 more than in March 1997.
	Health spending in Wales has increased under Labour to more than £1,900 per person per year, and that is more than double the 1996-97 Tory figure. GP numbers have risen by 9 per cent. over the past decade, and nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff numbers rose by one fifth. They are all Labour policies that deliver real help to people in Wales. Wales faces a stark choice between securing the economic recovery or wrecking it; building a fair society where everyone prospers or a divided society that favours a few; and protecting front-line services or a programme of savage cuts. That is the choice that people will face in a few weeks' time.
	Our actions will not be painless, but nor will they be reckless. The recovery is coming now because of the action that this Government have taken. However, the recovery in Wales is still fragile, and Tory policies threaten it. Only Labour can secure the jobs and mortgages of people in Wales; the Tories would be a change that we in Wales cannot afford. The red team may be the underdogs, but the blue team are crumbling under pressure, and momentum is as important in rugby as it is in politics. We will keep going to the final whistle on polling day in order to save Wales from the disaster of a Tory Government.

Cheryl Gillan: May I begin by paying tribute to our Welsh servicemen and women, who so bravely put their lives on the line for our country? I pay particular tribute to the Royal Welch Fusiliers, currently serving in Afghanistan; to the Welsh Guards, who have recently returned; and to all those Welshmen and women who are serving or have served in other regiments or services. All hon. Members know that we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude, and it is right that we begin this St. David's day debate by remembering them.
	This is the last St. David's day debate before the general election, as the Secretary of State made perfectly obvious, so may I take this opportunity to pay tribute, first, to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), whom I had the pleasure of facing in this debate last year? I always found him to be most courteous in my dealings with him, and I am glad that he is offering himself up for re-election. I also express my best wishes to those hon. Members who have announced their retirement from the House at the general election. I begin with the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who, sadly, is leaving us to go abroad- [ Interruption. ] It could be education, education, education, but I am sure that we will welcome him back to the House at some stage.
	Although we have not shared political allegiances, I have been honoured to work with the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), the hon. Members for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the Father of the House, and the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams).
	I pay tribute also to the hard work and dedication of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis). He, as our Welsh Affairs Committee Chairman, has worked hard in the interests of Wales alongside dedicated Committee members and Clerks. A Committee member with whom I have been pleased to work over the past three years is my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones). No constituency could have been served better by a Member, and it is a pleasure to work with him as part of the Opposition's team Wales. We both hope to be re-elected, because we have great plans for Wales, and we hope to have the opportunity to put them into effect.
	Our St. David's day debate once again takes place against a backdrop of turbulent economic times. Since last year 21,000 more people are unemployed in Wales, 10,000 are economically inactive, Welsh gross value added has declined further against the UK as a whole and the wage gap between Wales and the rest of the UK continues to increase. Before Labour Members think that I am talking Wales down, may I say that it would be hard to do so more eloquently than the Secretary of State? At our most recent Wales questions he said that Wales was wealthier than Rwanda, and, if any single comment has given us an insight into the Labour Government's complacency and paucity of ambition for Wales, it was that throwaway remark.
	No, we will not talk Wales down. However, as we enter the run-up to the general election-this time, one that not even the Prime Minister can avoid-we need to take a long, hard look at Labour's legacy in Wales following its 13 years in power, particularly as the Secretary of State is so keen to bring history into all our debates. After more than a decade in charge, there can be no more excuses. Labour's desperate attempts to blame the Tories simply do not wash any more.
	Given the struggling Welsh economy, the businesses and jobs that have been lost, the industries in decline and the lives that have been ruined, and given the waste of money and opportunity and the utter lack of long-term strategy, it is clear to every voter in Wales that we cannot afford five more years of Labour.
	The economy, of course, will dominate the election. So many businesses have disappeared from the Welsh scene-Burberry, Hoover, Bosch, Indesit and David McLean, to name but a few. That has left an increasing imbalance between the private and public sectors. The latest figures show that just under a quarter of people working in Wales are employed in the public sector, and it has recently been reported that since 1998, 55 per cent. of new jobs have been either in, or wholly supported by, the public sector. As I remember from a speech that he made when taking his sojourn on the Back Benches, even the Secretary of State has admitted that the private sector in Wales is too small.
	Labour, of course, protests that the recession is a global phenomenon; indeed, that is the Prime Minister's favourite phrase. But there can be little doubt that when the storm hit us, we were not best placed to weather it. Of all the major economies, we were one of the first to enter recession and the last to get out, behind France, Germany and Japan-indeed, behind any G20 country that we may care to name.
	It is fair to say that the Government have lost control of the country's finances. National debt currently stands at £850 billion and is set to rise to the equivalent of £23,000 for every single man, woman and child in Wales. The blame for that appalling state of affairs can be laid only at Labour's door; after all, it has been in government for 13 years. Even the Governor of the Bank of England said that we went into the downturn with levels of debt that were too high, all because the then Chancellor-now the Prime Minister-failed to put aside anything in the good years, and borrowed as if there had been no tomorrow. The Prime Minister, who said that he had abolished boom and bust, certainly abolished boom-and left us bust.
	It is clear that Labour has let Wales down. Even during periods of growth, Welsh gross value added per head continued to decline against that of the UK, from 80.3 per cent. in 1997 to 74.3 per cent. in 2008, the worst performance of any UK region. Agricultural GVA has declined shockingly, by 68.1 per cent. since 1997, its contribution to the Welsh economy falling from 2.2 per cent. in '97 to less than 0.5 per cent. in 2007.
	Manufacturing has stagnated under Labour. Between 1997 and 2007, its contribution to the Welsh economy tumbled from 27.6 to 17.9 per cent. Anglesey Aluminium closed while Labour dithered over energy policy, and 900 jobs have been just been lost at Bosch.

Albert Owen: There is a myth perpetuated by the Conservatives that that issue is to do uniquely with energy prices. The hon. Lady visited the Anglesey Aluminium plant. Does she not accept that the contract was being negotiated when energy prices were high? Those prices have now come down and aluminium prices have gone up. Had the company taken the bridging loan offered it by the Government, the jobs would have been sustained. Anglesey Aluminium took the commercial decision to cease production at Anglesey because it had operations overseas.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman fought hard for Anglesey Aluminium, but it is fair to say that the Government are the only shareholder in Wylfa, the nuclear power station. If the Government loan was not acceptable to the company, many more discussions could have been had at the time. I am so saddened by the loss of Anglesey Aluminium, particularly as I know that the materials that came out of the factory were excellent and included some of the rarer forms of ingot, including a unique ingot with a hole in the middle which could be extruded to make aluminium frames. The passing of that manufacturing is a great loss to Anglesey and the United Kingdom.

Peter Hain: I share the hon. Lady's regret-deep regret, in my case-that Anglesey Aluminium closed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) knows better than anybody else, we worked tirelessly as a Government on the issue. We put a very generous offer to Rio Tinto and the other parent company in an attempt to save Anglesey Aluminium. We remain astonished that it was not accepted. I do not think anybody is suggesting that the Government did anything other than go to the furthest possible extent in trying to save the company.

Cheryl Gillan: I, too, met Rio Tinto representatives, and all I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that there was a lot of dithering at the beginning. Perhaps the offer was too little, too late, or it was not the right offer and was too late.
	Nine hundred jobs are being lost at Bosch; that closure, I gather, has been on the cards for a year or more, but I understand that it took until last month for the Labour-Plaid Welsh Assembly Government to get around to holding talks with the company's management.
	After 13 years, what is Labour's legacy?

Julie Morgan: Is the hon. Lady aware of the expansion of private companies in my constituency? Last week, I visited Pelican Healthcare Ltd and Great Bear Healthcare Ltd, manufacturers of medicinal products, on the Llanishen trading estate. A vast amount of new building is going on; they were awaiting the arrival from Italy of machinery costing £1.5 million. There is also the big development at Fforest Farm and the development of GE Healthcare. The picture that she paints is not representative of what I see in my constituency.

Cheryl Gillan: I am absolutely delighted to hear that, particularly as GE Healthcare is headquartered in my constituency. I am thrilled to hear about the new jobs coming into the hon. Lady's constituency. Unlike the Secretary of State, I really am-

Albert Owen: You didn't mention the new jobs.

Cheryl Gillan: I have certainly read about them. However, I am also concerned about all those who have lost their jobs. Labour's record and legacy after 13 years in Wales is the loss of nearly 50,000 jobs since 1998. We need encouragement for the private sector and I thank the Secretary of State for joining me in supporting the proposed developments such as those at Holyhead and Fishguard, which could bring real benefits. Those ports are key employers in Anglesey and Pembrokeshire, and those developments could provide great opportunities for both areas, building on what I hope will be renewed nuclear generation at Wylfa and the big investments that we have seen in Pembrokeshire, such as the liquefied natural gas terminal.
	One continuing success story in north Wales is, of course, Airbus. We are close to international women's day, which I understand the Secretary of State's Government are just about marking this year, and I particularly want to congratulate the new apprentice of the year, Beth Pickering, whom David Cameron and I met during our visit to Broughton last year. It is good to see another woman moving forward in the business world, particularly in manufacturing.
	Wales, too, needs to move forward. I want businesses to grow, inward investment to increase, more people in Wales to work and our economy to be revitalised. A Conservative Government will offer the fresh approach and new direction that is needed. First, we will tackle the debt and set out clear plans to reduce the deficit. That is not an alternative to growth; it is essential to it.

Albert Owen: The hon. Lady made the important point that any future Conservative Government would help business. Is she suggesting that a Government of hers would have put in real cash to help Bosch and Anglesey Aluminium, or is she just having a go at the incumbent Governments here and in Cardiff?

Cheryl Gillan: I am not going to look backwards at hypothetical questions, because I have had to listen to nearly an hour of hypothetical rubbish from the Secretary of State. Most of the rubbish that he was spouting about what may or may not happen, and what Tory policy is, was from Fantasy Island.
	We have already outlined some of the steps we would take. We would freeze public sector pay for all but the lowest paid 1 million and cut the cost of Whitehall by a third. I see no volunteering for cutting at Whitehall from the Labour party. We would cap large public sector pensions. Yes, that would be tough, but Labour has made it tough, and someone has to take some tough decisions to regenerate our economy. We would concentrate benefits spending on the poorest and the most vulnerable, and we would tackle the jobs crisis with a comprehensive plan to help people into work.
	Hand in hand with this plan are our proposals to support businesses. We would reduce the small company corporation tax rate to 20 per cent. and reduce the headline rate of corporation tax to 25 per cent., reduce the bureaucracy needed to register new companies, remove restrictions on people in social housing from starting up a business, and abolish for a year the tax on the first 10 jobs created by new businesses in the first two years of a Conservative Government.
	However, if we are to build a strong and successful Welsh economy, we need not only to create an environment in which the private sector can flourish but to make improvements in the public sector.

Lembit �pik: Earlier on, the hon. Lady said that she was against the minimum wage and in favour of a minimum income. Is that Conservative policy now?

Cheryl Gillan: If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention, he would know that we were talking about events that happened more than 12 years ago.
	We would give public sector workers the right to form employee-owned co-operatives, giving them responsibility for their own success, sharing the rewards of a more efficient public sector, and letting people take pride in the vital services they provide. That is something that the right hon. Gentleman would not think of in a million years. The choice will be clear at the next election: five more years of Labour debt, bureaucracy and central control, or a new, energetic and revitalised agenda for our economy and for both the public and private sectors from the Conservatives.

Roger Williams: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: I am going to make some progress.
	The relationship between the Government in Whitehall and the Welsh Assembly Government is of paramount importance. Approaches in Whitehall differ from those in Cardiff, but it is crucial to the success of devolution, and to the success of Wales, that politicians understand the need to work together. As the First Minister recently acknowledged when appearing before the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, a relationship of mutual respect and good will is absolutely essential, and that works both ways.
	It was obvious to me that the Secretary of State had an enormous hole in his speech. He spent most of his time attacking the Tories, but he could not give us any meaningful information about the referendum that the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr asked about. Does the Secretary of State want to intervene to tell me what his plans are for consultation and set out the timing on replying and acceding to the relevant parts of the Government of Wales Act 1998? He could then tell us the details of the consultation and when he expects to be in a position to send a response.

Peter Hain: As I explained, I have placed the letters in the Library, and they are very clear that my officials will, under my instructions, make the necessary preparations requested by the First Minister.

Cheryl Gillan: I have read those letters, and they are pretty thin on the ground-they say absolutely nothing. I am asking for a detailed timetable for the consultation on this. Is there one?

Peter Hain: The hon. Lady knows what the Government of Wales Act stipulates, I assume, and my officials are working towards that timetable.

Cheryl Gillan: There we have it-answer came there none.
	A Conservative Secretary of State for Wales would make herself, or himself, available to answer questions in the Assembly on a regular basis, and a Conservative Prime Minister would do the same. Of course, we would also look forward to welcoming any Welsh Assembly Government Ministers here, as we have in the past, to exchange views on matters affecting Wales. Our approach recognises that the devolutionary settlement is such that Cardiff and Whitehall cannot continue to operate in silos. The scandalous waste of public money over, for example, the Red Dragon hangar shows just how Labour has failed in this regard.
	The choice at the next election will be between a party whose leader respects devolution, has visited Wales innumerable times, and wants co-operation in the interests of Welsh families, Welsh jobs and Welsh businesses, and a party whose leader has hardly come to Wales at all and thought so little of the country that he gave the portfolio to the Secretary of State as his job on the side.
	Wales has a distinct character and distinct needs, but it is firmly part of the United Kingdom. More than 25 per cent. of the population of the whole of Great Britain live within 50 miles of the border between England and Wales, tens of millions of tonnes of freight are transported across it each year, and thousands of people cross one way or the other for work and pleasure every day. Policies of separatism such as those of Plaid Cymru wholly fail to recognise that and would only damage Wales and its economy further-and Labour are Plaid's partners in Cardiff.
	Conservatives would offer a fresh approach from a leader to whom Wales is as important as every other part of the United Kingdom and a party that will put economic recovery, job creation and people's aspirations at the top of the agenda. The choice will be clear: five more years of Gordon Brown or the change Wales needs. Let us hope that when we meet for St. David's day debates in years to come, it is not on a tide of rising unemployment, increasing state interference and bureaucracy and economic misery, but against the background of a growing Welsh economy that is stable, resilient, optimistic and successful under a Conservative Government: a strong Wales in a strong United Kingdom. Dydd Gwyl Dewi hapus for next Monday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and diolch.

Paul Murphy: I have been trying to work out the first time that I spoke in a Welsh affairs debate. I think that it was 22 years ago, and obviously from the opposite side of this Chamber. I am grateful for, and echo, the comments of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about those colleagues of ours-Welsh Members of Parliament-who are to leave us when the election is called. They include the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We will be particularly saddened by the loss of my right hon. Friends the Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), to whom this House, the Government and the people of Wales owe a great debt. I shall personally be very saddened by that.
	As an aside, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the issue of the Isle of Man. In County Cavan this week, the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body met to discuss that matter, particularly with regard to the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales. I have written to my right hon. Friend about this.
	The world has, of course, changed. My own constituency has changed over the past couple of years, particularly in the past dozen to 18 months, because of the recession. I do not think that any Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency, or indeed a British constituency, could say otherwise. However, there is a world of difference between the arguments about why that recession has occurred. I do not believe for one second that the difficulties we face are the result of what a Labour Government have done between 1997 and now. Of course, there may be differences of view about how economic policy should have been structured, but the idea that the international and national banks did not cause the recession that we are now in will be central to the forthcoming general election. The central lie that is often told about the role of the banks needs to be addressed in the election campaign.
	If I look at my constituency now, in 2010, compared with how I remember it in 1996-97, I see that it is a very different place, despite what has occurred over the past dozen to 18 months. I look, for example, at how our older people are treated compared with how they were treated in the years before 1997. I look at the ability of our older people to travel the length and breadth of Wales as a result of the Labour Welsh Assembly Government's introduction of the travelcard, which, happily, I now possess. The fact that older people are better off is just one example. There is also the winter fuel allowance and the help that the Government have brought in for those in Wales who were desperately poor. The life of a pensioner in the towns and villages in my constituency is infinitely better than it was 14 or 15 years ago.
	We can also look at how our schools have flourished. It is not simply that we have more and better schools, and more teachers: our schools have grasped technology through the use of computers and the internet. My local education authority is leading the way in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently went to Cwmbran and saw how the internet is used by our pupils. There has been a transformation in Welsh education.
	There are more hospitals and more police than ever before. That transformation is a direct consequence of the actions of the Labour Government, the Assembly and Welsh local authorities.
	Of course, there have been difficulties with jobs, but can anyone honestly say that the number of jobs that have been created over the past decade is not infinitely better than what happened the decade before that? We should bear in mind what has happened in my constituency over a quarter of a century. When I came into the House in 1987, people relied for their income on the steel and coal industries-heavy industry. My constituency suffered the loss of some 10,000 to 15,000 jobs in a 10-to-15-year period, but all of them were replaced. The unemployment rate before this recession hit us was lower than since records began. Although all those jobs were lost, jobs in the retail sector and the new industries, such as technology, engineering and the food industry, all came to my constituency, and our young men and women were employed in greater numbers than ever. Had we not created those jobs and had the Conservatives been in power, this recession would have hit Wales much harder. Wales has been transformed because of Labour government, and our constituencies have been transformed. That is the message that we must put forward when we fight the election in days to come.
	The other thing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly emphasised is that the difference between this recession and the recessions we had before 1997 is that the Government, in conjunction with the Assembly Government and local authorities, have done something about it. Let me give just a few examples from my constituency. Following the Government tax deferral policy, 310 businesses in Torfaen deferred tax amounting to £6 million. The redundancy action scheme in Torfaen has helped 320 people, and seven companies that were in considerable difficulty have been helped by the ProAct scheme, which is widely admired beyond the shores of our country.
	The enormous contribution that the Labour Government have made in the past decade and what is on offer from the Conservatives reflect the stark choice to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred. If we thought for one second that-even in this recession-there are not companies in our constituencies that are being imaginative, greatly innovative and aspirational, we would be wrong. I shall give just one example. LS Design in Cwmbran in my constituency is a small high-tech company that employs local people in high-quality jobs. It is very much involved with General Dynamics, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn played a great role in bringing to our south Wales valleys and his constituency. It would be significant for LS Design if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales could tell my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary of the importance-in terms not only of the defence of our nation, but of the defence of jobs in Wales-of the future rapid effect system programme. LS Design is linked to General Dynamics. Were the FRES programme to be awarded to the latter, as I hope it will be, the former company's picture would be much brighter. I understand that it could employ double the number of people it currently employs, because it would have doubled the turnover. That is one example of how we can ensure that investment comes to companies in our Welsh constituencies.
	If the FRES programme goes ahead, there will be a significant impact in that it will ensure that our troops in Afghanistan will be better protected than they are at the moment. In that regard, I should like to mention Trooper James Prosser of The Royal Welsh Regiment, who was killed in Afghanistan last year. His mother, Sarah Adams, has been a doughty champion and fighter for the rights of our troops there, particularly Welsh troops. I am glad that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the fact that our Welsh troops in Afghanistan are fighting hard. They deserve the support they get from both sides of the House.
	Before I conclude, I should like to speak about the M4. The M4 is the lifeline of south Wales and in many respects, the south of England. In the past dozen or more years, we have spent a great deal of money on our transport systems and infrastructure in Wales and England. However, post-devolution, I sometimes doubt the wisdom of the co-ordination between the UK Department for Transport and the Welsh Department for the Economy and Transport when it comes to dealing with our motorways.
	To certain extent, it could be argued that the M4 has ceased to be a motorway, because at least 20 miles of it-a very important stretch and an economic lifeline for south Wales-between Newport and London is now subject to major roadworks and 50 mph limits. Indeed, the whole motorway structure of our first city, Cardiff, and of Newport, is now almost under construction. I wonder about the co-ordination between the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly Government on that. Travel is costly to business and difficult for the economy in these times. It now takes me at least an hour longer to drive to London than it did 21 years ago. It is very important that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State liaises with the Secretary of State for Transport to see what can be done.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not so much as a dual carriageway in Montgomeryshire at the moment, and that the problems are compounded by the apparent obsession with 50 mph speed limits in open areas. Does he agree that when the Secretary of State for Wales considers the issue of the M4, it might be useful if we can finally have a more strategic approach to connecting north, south and mid-Wales by road? That is decades overdue.

Paul Murphy: That is a very important aspiration. However, given that the great bulk of the population of south Wales is affected by those restrictions, there is a greater impact on local commerce and business. That point needs to be addressed.
	That was a minor gripe compared with the benefits that the people whom I represent-who I hope will re-elect me-have accrued as a consequence of having a compassionate and caring Government for the past 12 years. I believe that the only answer to the economic ills caused by the banking recession is investment and renewal. Given that the Conservatives are promising an age of austerity, such investment and renewal is conceivable only with the election of the Labour Government who work with a Labour-led Assembly.

Roger Williams: As always, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), to whom I pay tribute for the friendliness and support he offered in his two tenures as Secretary of State for Wales. He visited my constituency at the depth of the current recession to meet small business owners who were struggling and gave them assistance and encouragement.
	I am pleased to say that all the small businesses that attended that meeting are still in business, which is a tribute not only to the people who run those businesses and those who work in them, but to the support that they received. One of those businesses is struggling at the moment, but its customers are very keen that it continues to operate, and we are hopeful that that will be the case.
	It is a pleasure to speak in this St. David's day debate. As it is the last one before the general election, I pay tribute to all right hon. and hon. Members from Wales. I have been able to agree with some of them-but not others-from time to time, but I know that all their energies and enthusiasm are directed towards the well-being of Wales. I thank them, because we are able to get together and share solutions, and shared solutions are the best way to make progress.
	I also thank the shadow Secretary of State for her tribute to the young Welsh men and women who have served in our forces abroad, not only in the Welsh regiments and the Welsh Guards, but in the special forces-especially those from my constituency-who are sometimes forgotten because of the difficult nature of the work that they undertake. Despite my constituency being land-locked, some young people have also served in the Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq.
	This is probably the last occasion before the election on which we will concentrate on Welsh affairs, other than Welsh questions, which I anticipate will take place before then, although we cannot be entirely sure of that. Although I generally enjoy contributions from the Secretary of State and his shadow, I thought that today they gave rather dispiriting performances which showed that a general election is probably overdue. The arguments have been made so many times, and as I go around my constituency and the rest of Wales, I get the impression that people have made their minds up and want a general election as soon as possible. A new mandate is needed to rejuvenate and freshen this place. I shall talk about several disappointments, not to try to cast blame or aspersions, but in the hope that when we have a new Parliament and Government some of these issues will be revisited and a better conclusion will be reached for the people of Wales.
	In the past, the Barnett formula was considered boring and of little importance, but it is now becoming a much more important political consideration. However, after 13 years of Labour Government in Westminster and almost 11 in Cardiff, the Welsh population are really struggling for finance to address the needs of the nation. The concept of the Barnett squeeze is well understood now, and although I appreciate that it will probably be of less importance given the likelihood of lower public expenditure, that is no reason to leave it unaddressed. When I look at statistics on health needs in Wales, it is clear that a formula that is based on population and not on need is unfair not only to Wales but to other regions across the UK. The case that I make for a reform of the Barnett formula is not a selfish one on behalf of Wales, but for the whole of the UK and the needs of the people.
	I am concerned, for instance, that the figures appear to show that spending on education in Wales is £500 less per pupil than in England. The figures for educational attainment in Wales are not very encouraging and can be put down to the lower investment in Wales than in England.
	I am sure that we all welcome the unanimous vote in the Welsh Assembly on the referendum on additional powers. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to set a date for that referendum before the dissolution of Parliament. I listened to the Conservative point of view on this matter, but it was not clear whether that procedure would be put in place under a Conservative Government. We did not hear any confirmation, but it is strange that the Conservatives in Westminster and in the Assembly oppose the housing legislative competence order, given that they voted unanimously in favour of the referendum. The leader of the Conservative group in the Welsh Assembly is not the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, who is in favour of a transfer of further powers, including powers over housing. It seems hardly logical to oppose the transfer of powers through the LCO, but to support the transfer of powers as a whole through the referendum.

David Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the opposition of the Conservatives on the Select Committee was founded on evidence, which both the Under-Secretary and the Welsh deputy Housing Minister confirmed, that there is no policy objective to abolish the right to buy. That being the case, it was wholly illogical to apply for powers that include the power to abolish the right to buy.

Roger Williams: That is a strange and illogical argument, because if powers were transferred to the Welsh Assembly, they would include the powers that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Peter Hain: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that any proper reading of the legislative competence order shows that it would transfer powers to the Welsh Assembly Government to undertake the huge task of improving the range of affordable and available housing in Wales and dealing with homelessness. That is why it has the support of Shelter Cymru and other organisations. There is no abolition of the right to buy. There is the option of a mechanism to address the lack of affordable rural housing, but it would be used in very restricted circumstances in rural areas such as Pembrokeshire and Gwynedd. But the fundamental question is why the Conservatives are opposing powers being taken by the Assembly in an area-housing-where it already has responsibility, but wants a little more flexibility to be able to carry out the tasks before it.

Roger Williams: I agree with the Secretary of State-

Cheryl Gillan: Read the Select Committee evidence.

Roger Williams: I will read it, but it is incredible to me-when I became a Member of Parliament in 2001, I did not think that housing would be an especially big issue in my area-that almost a third of the people who come to my surgeries do so because they have housing difficulties. If the Welsh Assembly had more powers to address those issues in my constituency-and others-it would be very welcome.

Lembit �pik: I agree with my hon. Friend whose constituency is very similar to mine in geography and social profile. Does he agree that we in Powys really need these powers to be devolved? If the Conservatives carry out their threat to try to resist that, it will run counter to everything that he and I have been trying to do to address social housing problems and homelessness in our constituencies.

Roger Williams: My hon. Friend makes a very good point-it is the point that I am trying to make-but there is also a point about how illogical it is to try to obstruct this progress when it seems that most parties in Wales would like further powers, which would include those powers anyway.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being generous. It would be interesting to hear from the Conservatives, on the record, whether they will veto the housing legislative competence order in the wash-up negotiations, because they have the power to do that- [Interruption.] Yes, says the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones). I think that I heard a mutter from a sedentary position.

David Jones: indicated assent.

Peter Hain: Yes, he says! Well, that is very serious. It shows the Conservative's intolerance of devolution and of dealing with vital housing needs and shortages in Wales.

Roger Williams: From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I certainly cannot answer on behalf of the Conservative party-we will see what happens in the wash-up, which will be viewed with great interest by Members of the House and people living in Wales.
	Employment rates in Wales are the third issue that I want to touch on. We have argued about whether 8.7 per cent. unemployment is high, higher or whatever, but my point is that an unemployed person is 100 per cent. unemployed. Sometimes, when we talk about statistics, we tend not to address the individual circumstances that desperately affect people's lives. Anything that we and the Government can do to improve employment is obviously hugely important. Yet we have had enormous closures, sometimes in traditional industries, such as the steel industry in Wales, and the signs for employment and manufacturing in Wales-I have seen figures on manufacturing employment in Wales-are not encouraging.
	On some of the rural issues, we have campaigned long and hard for a rural fuel duty rebate. That has been taken up by other countries in the European Union, and it is within the Government's competence and power to address. Indeed, Italy, France and Greece have gone down that route. We recently had a debate on that issue in Westminster Hall, which was led more by Scottish Members than by Welsh Members, but it is an issue about which both areas feel strongly, and anything that the Secretary of State or Minister can do to intervene with the Treasury would be well supported.
	In general, rural areas experience reductions in services from, for instance, post offices. There are now fewer than 1,000 post offices in Wales, which I think is a fairly iconic number, and more than 300 have closed recently. At the moment, I am trying to find a way to keep a post office open in Abercraf, in my constituency-I am working with the miners' welfare hall, so that we can move it there. We desperately need flexibility within the Post Office to ensure that those novel and innovative solutions can be achieved.
	To return to housing, it is not surprising that there is a rural exodus among the Welsh youth, given that housing prices are so high. As a result of young people leaving villages, schools, doctors' surgeries and other essential services are closing. It is a Catch-22 situation.
	The Liberal Democrats look forward to the taxation system being reformed to make it much more progressive and less regressive. I am sure that many hon. Members are dealing with individuals who are trying to get back into employment but who are finding that the loss of benefits and the kicking-in of income tax at very low rates preclude some of them from re-entering employment, because they would be financially worse off as a result. Our party's proposals for a personal allowance of £10,000 and taxing people who claim their income in terms of capital gains would be a way towards a progressive taxation system.
	Rural broadband provision is another area in which Wales lags behind the rest of the UK, and certainly many businesses in my constituency, and across vast swathes of Wales, are single-person operations requiring access to modern communications and technology.
	I shall turn quickly to agriculture. The Government's agreement to set up an ombudsman-it has the support of other parties, too-is a huge step forward for an agricultural industry that has been hampered by being uncompetitive when supplying the main supermarkets. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) will soon be taking forward his private Member's Bill, and I hope to be there to support him. I also hope that the Government can find a way to support it and to work with him to bring a really effective ombudsman and regulatory system to an area that has been difficult in the past.
	Finally, I turn to a personal, constituency issue. Daniel Morgan was murdered in London nearly 23 years ago; he was found with an axe in his head in a pub car park. His mother lives in my constituency. When Daniel was murdered, she was rung at 4 o'clock in the morning and told that her son was dead, but the policeperson making the phone call was unable to give any other details, except to say that she would have to come to London to find them out. That was at 4 o'clock in the morning. She was living on her own and did not know how to get to London. I am pleased to say that she and her other son, Alistair, have ensured that Daniel's case has never stopped being looked at, and I, and my predecessor, Richard Livsey, have been taking it forward for 15 years or more.
	Four people are now in custody, awaiting trial for Daniel Morgan's murder, and we look forward to Mrs. Hullsman, his mother, having at least some sense of closure and justice. However, the sad thing is that Mrs. Hullsman, who is now over 80-she was 59 when she heard that her son had been murdered-thought that the trial was going to take place last September, but it is now going to take place this September. The delay and agony caused to the family by that delay has been horrific, and if something can be done to speed up the judicial system, so that closure can be given to the family, it would be fantastic. Mrs. Hullsman, her son Alistair and I will keep campaigning for that, because it is an injustice that should be put right.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are coming to the end of a Parliament. It has not been a happy occasion for Parliament as a whole, but I look forward to a new Parliament that will be reinvigorated and that will work for the interests of Wales.

Ann Clwyd: I am afraid that daffodils are in short supply at the moment. Very few of us have been able to get the real thing, but some of us have made an attempt and compromised, with at least a flash of yellow on our coats.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) must have a good arrangement with the flower lady in the House of Commons then. Things are a bit difficult, but I hope that in future we will see large bunches of daffodils brought in for this debate for Dydd Gwyl Dewi Sant, or St. David's day. I would also like it to be held on 1 March, but we never seem to manage that.
	I would like to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said in his speech about how Wales has improved over the years, particularly under a Labour Government. I first became an elected Member in 1979, when the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) was in Brecon and Radnorshire, which was in my European constituency. I hope that I do not embarrass him, but I was very grateful for his help at that time. We remain good friends, even though we are on opposite sides of the Chamber, and I hope that he might help me in other campaigns some time in the future.
	When I was first elected, as a Euro MP, there were big job changes in steel and coal. I remember the devastating effect of that, with Llanelli and Swansea being in my European constituency. I was continually taking groups of steel workers threatened by closure-something that ultimately became a fact-to protest in Brussels. I also remember the Social Affairs and Employment Commissioner being aghast that the UK did not seem to have a social policy to cushion the effects of unemployment, which was gradually growing in the steel industry. Almost every other country in the European Community at that time had a social policy. We did not, and we were strongly criticised for that by the Commissioner at the time. In fact, when 5,000 comparable steel workers in Germany lost their jobs in the Ruhr, almost every one had another job to go to. Unfortunately, that was not the case in Wales, or indeed in the rest of the UK. Fortunately, attitudes are now very different.
	I was then elected to this place in 1984, in the middle of the miners' strike, in a by-election. That was a time when we did not have to knock on doors, as all the people we wanted to canvass were sitting outside their doors, because they were not at work. The effects of the miners' strike and the lack of either a social policy or any compassion towards those miners, who were fighting for their jobs, were evident. I took a Conservative colleague to my constituency, at his request, to see the effects of the miners' strike on the people of the Cynon Valley. He came away shocked, and I remember clearly what he said: People look different. They look ill. That is not what the kind of conservatism that I understand should be all about.

David Davies: The right hon. Lady is making some interesting comments, but does she not also accept that the strike was called without proper consultation of National Union of Mineworkers members-had they been properly consulted, it is likely that they would have voted against it-and that that is what caused a lot of the damage?

Ann Clwyd: The leaders of the miners' strike at that time predicted that the coal mines were going to shut. They were fighting for their very existence. It was important that they engaged in that fight and drew attention to the fact that those jobs were going to go. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Prime Minister at the time-the leader of his party-was hellbent on bring the miners' union down, by whatever means, and the miners knew it too. There were criticisms to be made of those leading the miners' strike, and they were indeed criticised subsequently. Nevertheless, they were right in their interpretation of what was going to happen to their industry.

David Davies: rose-

Ann Clwyd: No, let me continue. I saw the effect of being out of work on those people in the Cynon Valley. It was an effect that lasted for many years afterwards, because they had to borrow money to pay mortgages and to live. There were also soup kitchens, which I and several of my colleagues here in the Chamber were involved in, just to try to feed people who could no longer afford to feed their families.
	People who have lived through that kind of situation realise that much more compassion is now shown towards people who are unemployed, or who might become unemployed, and that cushions are in place to assist them. It is therefore not surprising that people like me, who have lived through those years, feel that a Labour Government have done much better by my constituents than the previous Tory Government did. I was in opposition for 18 years, as a Euro MP and, later, when I came here, so I know the difference. I am sure that most of my constituents still appreciate that difference as well.
	Another thing that has happened in the valleys is that the environment has changed, partly because some of the older industries have gone but also because of the greater appreciation of the need for a good environment. The Phurnacite plant was in my constituency when I was first elected, for example. It had seven large chimneys that spewed smoke of different colours into the air. The health of the people living in the area and of those working in the plant was affected by that. Indeed, a test case is going through at the moment involving people who worked at the Phurnacite plant at Abercwmboi. The environment has now changed beyond recognition, making it a much more pleasant place to live. I am grateful to our Government for making that possible and for concentrating a great many resources into improving the environment for the people there.
	There are many other things that I would like to talk about. The position of women has also changed in Wales. There are far more women in Parliament now, certainly on this side of the House. I hope that there will be more women on both sides after the next election. It has been a long, hard battle for women, as I know full well, and I was pleased when more women came from Wales to join me here. I hope that the number of women MPs from Wales will continue to grow after the election. I should like to pay tribute to my colleagues who are retiring at the election. I thank them for their friendship and for all that they have given to the House while they have been here. I will not name them individually, but they know who I mean.
	I want to pick up on some of the points raised by the Secretary of State for Wales earlier. I have already mentioned the Robin Hood tax. The people of my constituency feel strongly about a number of issues at the moment. There is still anger about the role of the banks in the financial crisis, and about the unacceptable levels of pay. The recession that we have been through-and that I hope we have now seen the back of-has affected people's jobs and mortgages, and in all sorts of other ways.
	The recession was caused-or at least made worse-in part by the global financial crisis. I believe that that was caused by the irresponsible practices of global banks and financial institutions, and by economies relying too much on that financial sector. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, people understand that the collapse of the whole banking sector would have been disastrous for the economy, and that the Government were right to bail out the banks to prevent that from happening. That much they go along with.

David Jones: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Clwyd: Let me just finish my argument, please. Then I will happily give way.
	What most people think, and what common sense tells us, is that, after all that taxpayers' money had been used to prop up the banks, the deal was that the banks would look again at how they did things, and that they would start to behave more responsibly. As the Secretary of State said, people do not understand how the Royal Bank of Scotland-the majority of which is owned by the taxpayer-can make a loss, as announced today, and at the same time argue with a straight face that it needs to pay substantial bonuses. Last year, I introduced my own Bankers' Pensions (Limits) Bill, which would have addressed the absurd pension packages being awarded to failed bank executives. Therefore, I very much welcome the one-off bankers bonus tax introduced by the Government. Even better than a one-off tax would be a tax on every year's bonus round.
	We should go further still. I fully support the idea of a Robin Hood tax on global financial transactions, which could be used to address the causes of global poverty, to fund some of our own public services, or just to underwrite the financial system so that it is in a position to bail itself out in future. That is one of a number of measures that could inject a little more responsibility into the financial system. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has said that he supports the idea, as long as he gets global support for it, and I hope it will become a reality.

David Jones: The right hon. Lady mentions the failure of the banks. Does she share the view of the Governor of the Bank of England that had the regulatory regime that was in place not been in place, and had there been an overarching responsibility on the part of one regulator, the failures of the banks would have been nipped in the bud? On bank bonuses, is she aware that in the case of the Royal Bank of Scotland, they are to be confined to employees earning less than £39,000 a year, and that the Prime Minister has indicated through his spokesman today that those bonuses are in line with what he approves of?

Ann Clwyd: I find it quite amusing to be lectured on regulation by a party that has constantly argued against regulation and in favour of deregulation. I cannot take the hon. Gentleman seriously when he makes such a point. Instead of making personal points to the Prime Minister, why does he not talk about the economy to the Prime Minister when he next has the opportunity?

Hywel Williams: I was wondering whether the right hon. Lady would refer to the fact that the UK economy is overly dependent on the financial sector, as she pointed out earlier. However, it was her Government who were in charge at the time when manufacturing in Wales was completely decimated and the over-emphasis on the financial sector came about.

Ann Clwyd: I had finished my argument on that point and did not expect to expand on it further. I just make the point that I am in favour of a Robin Hood tax, and I would like to hear a response from the Opposition on that.

Lembit �pik: Does the right hon. Lady share with me a sense of wonderment at the cheek of the Conservative party for criticising the current regulatory system, which, to some extent, allowed the banking collapse, given that the Conservative Government created that very system?

Ann Clwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. In my original answer, I said that I could not take seriously arguments on regulation or deregulation from the Conservative party.

Hywel Williams: The right hon. Lady asked for a response on what is now called the Robin Hood tax. That has been a policy of my party for many years, and I am glad to see other parties coming on board.

Ann Clwyd: At least we have support from one section of the Opposition.
	We should also explore the idea of a high pay commission, which could be modelled on the Low Pay Commission. It would look at the effects of very high pay-people earning millions of pounds in salaries and bonuses-on the economy and wider society. Very large inequalities in pay, and people earning very high pay, distort the economy and are bad for the well-being of society. The Government needed to be there to prevent the collapse of the banks and its impact on the economy, but they also need to be there to support people when they are struggling and require help. The Tories simply do not understand that. I was here in the 1980s and '90s and remember their attitude towards people then.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observed, for the Tories unemployment was a price worth paying, despite its devastating consequences for individuals and communities. I do not believe that their attitudes have changed at all since then. I think that when the Tories talk about cutting state involvement in people's lives, they mean cutting support for people. I think that the difference between a Labour and a Tory Government-which is becoming all too apparent-is that Labour understands that when people are struggling they look to the Government for support, and understands that Governments can be a force for good.
	In my constituency, 8,200 families are receiving child or working tax credit. In April, a £65 increase in the child element of child tax credit will benefit more than 200,000 families in Wales. More than 4,000 pensioner households in Cynon Valley receive pension credit. There are also winter fuel payments of £250 for the over-60s and £400 for the over-80s, along with, this winter, cold weather payments of £25 a week.
	More people have kept their jobs and more businesses have kept going because of the action taken by the Labour Government throughout the recession. The rate of job losses during this recession has been four times lower than it was in the 1990s. In Cynon Valley, the new deal job schemes have created 3,390 jobs since 1997. Other schemes, such as the future jobs fund, are helping people into jobs rather than throwing them on the scrapheap as the Tories did. Labour is supporting young people by guaranteeing an education or training place for those aged up to 18, and a job or training place for 18 to 24-year-olds who have been out of work for six months
	On Monday, along with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I shall visit the Cynon Valley whisky-producing factory in Penderyn. I shall then attend a topping-out ceremony for the new Cynon Valley neighbourhood hospital, which is due to open in April 2011.
	All that represents a Labour Government at Westminster, a Labour-led Government in Wales, and a Labour council in Rhondda Cynon Taf delivering real public service improvements.

Stephen Crabb: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). She is a powerful voice for Cynon Valley, and also a persistent and tireless champion of the rights of women and other oppressed groups living under authoritarian Governments and dictators in different parts of the world. She has won my respect and admiration for both those aspects of her work.
	So far, this St David's day debate has largely followed the pattern of previous such debates, and, indeed, our debates in the Welsh Grand Committee. The Secretary of State always leads with a highly combative and partisan speech, engaging in heavy historical revisionism and distorting the Opposition parties' track records and policies. Members of his party then take up the theme, and usually end up looking back to the 1980s and 1990s and comparing the record of previous Conservative Governments with what they consider to be that of the current Government.
	I would caution against that, and I intend to use the next few minutes to inject some corrective content into the discussion. First, however, I wish to join other hon. Members in paying tribute to all the Welsh servicemen and servicewomen who are serving in Afghanistan. During the recent recess, my constituents learned that Lance Sergeant David Greenhalgh, of north Pembrokeshire, had been the latest Welsh soldier to be killed in action in Afghanistan. He was killed on Saturday 13 February in Lashkar Gah, aged 25. He was an outstanding young man, and he will be remembered with the deepest honour and respect. I think all hon. Members will agree that the young Welsh men and women out there represent some of the finest role models for all Welsh people at this time.
	The context and backdrop for this year's St. David's day debate is, of course, the crisis in our public finances. I should emphasise the word crisis because nothing the Secretary of State had to say on the matter got close to recognising honestly the challenge this country is facing, with the disaster that has been visited on our fiscal affairs and the state of the public finances. The projected deficit is a truly enormous £178 billion. That is an unprecedented sum: the country has not had a deficit like it before. Frankly, for the Secretary of State to try to reassure us that somehow under a Labour Government it can be halved or eliminated within four years, without giving any real idea of how they will do that, does not cut it. The truth is that within two years the interest we will be paying on our national debt will be approaching £60 billion a year, which is more than the Ministry of Defence and education budgets combined. We will be spending more on servicing our debt than on educating our children and young people, and on defending our borders.

Cheryl Gillan: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has had an opportunity yet to read the text of the excellent lecture given last night by the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). It contained some fairly grim analysis, including the fact that if the off-balance-sheet liabilities such as public sector pensions are included, we are well on the way to having a level of debt amounting to more than 90 per cent. of GDP, and that the interest payments on that debt could rise above 10 per cent. of GDP within 10 years, and to almost 30 per cent. in 30 years. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) agree that those predictions-which are made by some very eminent people who understand economics possibly better than we do-are alarming?

Stephen Crabb: I am very alarmed at those statistics; in fact, I find them horrifying. The true state of the public finances is appalling. Who will pay for this? Frankly, it will not be our generation; instead, it will be the nation's young people, and the children after them. Indeed, I think that one reason why there has been such a tone of complacency on our public finances this afternoon is that it is not the generations represented in this Chamber today who will end up picking up the bill.
	Young people are among the biggest victims of the current recession. We need only consider the increase in youth unemployment in the past two years to realise that. They are victims of this recession not only because of unemployment, however; they are victims of an unsustainable and irresponsible increase in public spending that has brought us to this position, because the truth is that, contrary to what the Secretary of State tried to make us believe, the massive deficit we are facing is not just a result of the banking crisis. There was a large, growing and unsustainable structural deficit in the public finances even before the bank bail-out, and that did not get addressed. Young people will end up paying for this.
	Two weeks ago, I spoke to a year 12 group at Ysgol Bro Gwaun in Fishguard as part of its Welsh baccalaureate studies. The students told me that in a previous class they had been addressed by a speaker from Swansea university, who had given them a very sobering message indeed about how tough things will be, particularly this year and next year, for young people wanting to go to university, because of the cuts that have been visited on the higher education budget. The truth is that Welsh young people will have to fight harder than before; they will have to achieve higher grades than ever before to win places at university. Many hundreds, or thousands, of Welsh prospective students will find out later this year that they cannot pursue their desired course at university or that they have not got a place at a college or university of their choice. Many will instead find themselves adding to the youth unemployment statistics. The truth is that the higher education budget has been singled out for a massive cut already. The Secretary of State did not elaborate on that, but he is a member of the Government and Cabinet that made that decision three weeks ago. Almost £1 billion will be cut from the English higher education budget over the next three years, and that will have a direct impact on Welsh prospective students.

Mark Williams: I wish to reinforce that point. The knock-on effect to which the hon. Gentleman refers means that the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, which is a part of Aberystwyth university, is having to comprehend the prospect of up to 70 job losses. That is a tragedy for not only the young people, but the associated local economy. This is a very serious issue.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, as ever. This Government are so desperate to cling on to this bogus narrative that a re-elected Labour Government would mean continued spending and investment and that a Tory Government would mean savage and irresponsible cuts. That narrative is just not credible for two reasons. The first is that every serious commentator and analyst who examines the state of the public finances knows that cuts across the board will need to be made in the next few years-those cuts will be very severe for some Departments and will have a direct knock-on effect in Wales.
	I shall now speak slightly parochially as the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, because the second reason why this message from the Government is not credible is because constituencies such as mine in rural west Wales have been living with Labour's cuts for the past 10 years. We know what cuts look like because we have been living with public service cuts.

Albert Owen: indicated dissent.

Stephen Crabb: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's constituency is the only one in Wales that has been immune from the near total decimation of NHS dentistry that Wales has seen under a Labour Government. This Labour Government have destroyed NHS dentistry in rural Wales. More than 4,500 people in Pembrokeshire are waiting for an NHS dentist, and some of them have been waiting for three or four years.
	The Labour Government have cut the rural post office network to ribbons in the past few years. Rural villages throughout west and north Wales have lost amenities and that has had a massive impact, particularly on the elderly who live in these communities. The near total decimation of the rural tax office network in Wales has happened under this Labour Government. We have lost Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs office in Haverfordwest and, indeed, most tax offices in rural west and north Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: I remember visiting local employees of HMRC with my hon. Friend several years ago and complaining about those closures, because they have affected not only the people who used to work in those offices, but people who are desperately trying to pay their taxes. We should not underestimate the amount of pain that has been caused and we must remember that this was happening during the so-called good times under this Government.

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The great paradox that people in my constituency do not understand is why, when public spending was being ramped up so rapidly, they did not see the benefit of it and instead saw cuts to important local services. If Labour wishes to bring its election campaign to west Wales to argue that a Labour Government would mean continued spending and a Tory Government would mean cuts, it will not get far with the people of Pembrokeshire. I say with no disrespect to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) that Labour faces the prospect of not having a Member west of Swansea after this coming election, because of what it has done to rural west Wales.
	I conclude by making a few remarks about transport infrastructure. I have spoken before about the inadequate state of the road network connecting west Wales to the rest of the United Kingdom. The A40, which is the principal route running east-west through my constituency, forms part of the strategic European road network linking the west coast of Ireland with continental Europe, yet the people who use that road and make the long journeys-I am thinking of the lorry drivers to whom I have spoken-say that the very worst section of that continental route is the bit through Pembrokeshire. It is a single carriageway, it is overused and it is dangerous.
	Pembrokeshire contains a quarter of the UK's remaining oil refineries, the liquefied natural gas plants that will provide up to 20 per cent. of the UK's gas supply, and two major ferry terminals, yet this pathetic single carriageway A40 goes through it. Labour in Westminster and Labour in the Assembly has been completely resistant to any argument put to it by the business community, Assembly Members, MPs or local authorities for improving, upgrading and dualling that section of road. I am sick and tired of seeing Labour Ministers make the journey down to my constituency to have their photographs taken at the new LNG sites, the oil refineries and the other developments in my constituency, and to praise those developments, given that they will not listen to the views of the management of these companies-the foreign investors who have pumped money into these projects-who say, For goodness' sake, why can't we improve the transport infrastructure? Part of the reason why is that as we now have the Welsh Assembly, a Cardiff-centric body is making the decisions about transport spending. Pembrokeshire and other parts of west Wales are a blind spot for the Welsh Assembly.

Peter Hain: As it happens, I agree that the A40 should be upgraded. I argued that as a Welsh Transport Minister and I hope that it will be addressed when resources allow, although for the life of me I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman scan think that under a Conservative Government the Welsh Assembly Government will have the resources necessary to upgrade roads, let alone those to west Wales. Since he paints such a dismal picture of life in Pembrokeshire, may I ask him why long-term unemployment in Preseli and south Pembrokeshire is 82 per cent. lower than it was when Labour came into power and why long-term youth unemployment is 67 per cent. lower? That is a sign of success, not dismal misery.

Stephen Crabb: I do not paint any dismal picture of life in Pembrokeshire. Pembrokeshire remains the best place in Britain to live and grow up-

Peter Hain: Because of the Labour Government.

Stephen Crabb: It always has been. We have spoken before about the unemployment figures, and I welcome the drop in unemployment in my constituency. I grew up at a time when unemployment was a lot higher than it is now. I am the first to put my hand up and welcome the fall in unemployment, largely on the back of some big investments from the private sector. Let me make the point again. These people who are pumping the money in are American, Malaysian and French; they come from all over the world because they recognise the strategic importance of Milford Haven as an energy hub. They all say to me and to the chief executive of my local authority that we need better transport infrastructure. That is the message I want to leave with the Government, but I fear that we will need a change of Government to get any serious movement on the issue.

Don Touhig: I am probably the only Member on the Government Benches seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in today's debate who, by deliberate decision, will be retiring at the coming general election and who will not be here at the next St. David's day debate. At the outset, may I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), the shadow Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for the kind things that they have all said about those of us who will be retirees at the next general election? I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and my hon. Friends the Members for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) and for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones). They have all made a considerable contribution to this House in the time that they have been here. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price). He and I have clashed many a time over the years but I have no doubt about his passion for, and commitment to, making good the lives of the people of Wales.

Peter Hain: I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to all our colleagues who are retiring, but may I pay particular tribute to him? He was a terrific Wales Office Minister serving my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and serving me, and he has served this House for 15 years. I fought with him in his by-election-I was his minder. The fact that he is standing down represents a real loss to this House and to Wales and I wish him all the best in the future.

Don Touhig: I thank my right hon. Friend. When I came and stood at the Bar of the House he stood on one side and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen stood on the other-I had the two apostles, Peter and Paul. When I got to the Table of the House, they abandoned me and I was left on my own after that. I thank them anyway.
	The first time I spoke in this Chamber was on 2 March 1995. I had been elected to Parliament on 16 February in a by-election and I took the opportunity of the annual St. David's day debate to make my maiden speech. I spoke then from the Opposition Benches and I remember laying into the appalling record of a discredited Tory Government who were systematically destroying and tearing apart society in Wales. With the passage of time, it is easy to forget the state of the country as we inherited it when we came into government in 1997. When I spoke 15 years ago, schools were struggling to deliver education with budgets that had been squeezed by Tory Government cuts. As for our health service, a hospital serving my constituency appealed to the public not to come to the casualty unit because there were not enough doctors to deal with emergency cases.

David Davies: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in the highest esteem, but does he really think it wise to compare records on the NHS given the disgraceful report that has recently come out about an NHS hospital in England?

Don Touhig: I have no doubt that is important to compare records on the NHS. The Labour party founded the NHS-resisted by the Conservative party. We built and sustained it; all the Conservatives have done to it when they have been in government is to damage it.
	When I re-read the speech that I made 15 years ago-as I did the other day, not out of vanity, but to check what I had said-it made me go a little cold, because in spite of the desperate circumstances that people were in at that time, the then Tory Government proved that they did not give a damn. We had an NHS that had been driven almost to breaking point, despite the superb commitment of doctors and nurses, and the people who suffered most throughout the UK were those who relied entirely on the NHS for their treatment. My constituents were among the worst affected.

Cheryl Gillan: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore share my despair regarding the report that has emerged today, which states that six out of the seven new local health boards in Wales are to go more than £43 million over budget? That is, of course, under a Labour-run Welsh Assembly Government. It appears that those budgets are under great pressure and that those boards will not be able to balance the books or ensure high patient standards.

Don Touhig: I share the hon. Lady's concern about budget difficulties in the health service, which are inevitable because demand will always be greater than can ever be satisfied. Nevertheless, more money has been pumped into the health service under Labour Governments than was ever pumped in when the Conservative party were last in government.
	My constituency, Wales and the UK have all been transformed in the past few years compared with the situation when I came here 15 years ago. Even now, however, the Tories have not learned any lessons. They look back on the years when they were in government as some sort of golden age. Frankly, they simply have not changed. While every country in Europe wants to maintain investment in the economy in the coming year, they say that if they are elected, they will start making cuts on day one. The Conservative party is the very same party that advocated standing aside and letting banks go bust, the very same party that was prepared to stand aside and see families evicted from their homes because they could not pay their mortgages, and the very same party that was prepared to see people thrown out of work because of a lack of Government support for business and industry. All that would be accelerated and would cause even more grief if they were to come into government and make sweeping cuts to public services.
	In 1995, I lamented the fact that we had no general hospital in Islwyn. Between 1993 and 1994, 30,000 people from my constituency went to the nearest out-patient department 15 miles away in Newport. If anything shows the change and the great investment that Labour Governments have made, it is the fantastic 21st-century hospital at Ystrad Fawr on the border between my constituency and that of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David). Since 1999, investment in the NHS in Wales has nearly doubled, and investment in new buildings and equipment has trebled. There has been major investment in schools, with a massive rise in the number of nursery school places. There are smaller class sizes and we have new buildings and equipment, as well as extra teachers. For the working families I represent, education has been a pathway out of poverty-secured by a Labour Government. For me, that is the fundamental difference between a Tory Government and a Labour Government. The Labour party stands by the people, whereas the Tory party stands idle and lets the people suffer.
	It is all very well to look back-and it is especially tempting now, at my time-but it is also important to look forward. These have been great, reforming Labour Governments, whose one great legacy has been their attempts to eradicate poverty in every form. The great socialist James Maxton once said:
	Poverty is man-made therefore open to change.
	The Government have embraced that idea and have done much to try to reduce poverty. There is much more to do. The two poorest groups in our society are at the extreme ends of the age range-pensioners and children.

David Jones: If tackling poverty is indeed the Government's principal aim, will the right hon. Gentleman concede that they have failed abjectly in Wales? It is the poorest region of the country, and four of the five poorest local authority areas in the whole UK are based there. Does he acknowledge that that is a complete, abject and utter failure?

Don Touhig: The point is that we have continued to invest to reduce poverty and improve communities. That investment did not exist until this party came into government, and it will not exist if it were to cease to be in government.
	Yes, too many children still live in poverty. We can all quote figures, but what does poverty mean for children? It means that they do not have regular meals or decent clothes, and that they do not live in decent accommodation. It means that children do not have the right equipment for school, or the inclination to use it. Poverty also means that children, as they go into adulthood, expect to fail even before they get started.
	One aspect of poverty-the poverty of ambition-is not often reported in the newspapers. The problem is not easy to quantify but, if we do not tackle it, we will not progress and improve our society. All too often, I have heard people say, Going to university or starting a business? Not for the likes of us.
	I well remember visiting a primary school in my constituency. The headmaster told me, Do you know, Don, when I came to the village, nobody expected anything from me? No one had gone to university, or had the ambition to do so. They believed that university was not for the likes of them. He told me, I said to a lady last week, 'If you work with me, your lad is going to university.' She said, 'You're off your b..... head!' The headmaster added that the lad in question was inquisitive, intelligent and articulate. He said, If they worked with me as a family, he would go to comprehensive school and be on his way to university. Poverty of ambition must be eradicated. The task that we face is to equip people of all ages with the skills that they need, and the self-confidence to say, Yes, university is for me. Yes, I will start and invest in and build up my own business.
	That task will not be easy. It calls on us to have a change of mindset and be bold and radical, but it also means that we have to provide training throughout life. It is absolutely critical to our economic future that we invest in training and upskilling our people. In the US, 80 per cent. of people in work have been back in a training situation since leaving school. The figure in Germany and Japan is 56 per cent., but it is only 30 per cent. here. That is the measure of how far we still have to travel to improve training and opportunities for our people.
	For us to compete, we need to give our people the skills in IT and engineering that will attract investment. We must also get a head start in the coming green revolution and all the new technologies that will accompany it. We need to give our people in Wales the skills that they do not yet have in order to create the jobs that we do not yet have.
	I have always felt that the real challenge is not just Welsh, but global. We are part of a world where powerful new economies such as China and the Asian nations will challenge and then overtake Europe and the US. I welcome that challenge, as should we all. We cannot bury our heads in the sand: it is absolutely vital that we are ready, willing and able to meet that challenge head-on. There is no future for Wales-or, for that matter, the UK-if we try to compete for low-skilled, low-paid jobs. They will go where money and wages are cheapest. It is as simple as that.
	Our real competitive advantage will be our knowledge base, and our capacity for innovation. In simple terms, we have to be smarter, quicker and more adaptable than our competitors. The world is undergoing a new industrial revolution-the knowledge revolution, fuelled by the pace of technological change. Wales must be at the forefront of that change.
	The only way that countries such as Wales will be able to compete is by retraining and upskilling our people. We have to keep ahead with new innovative ideas, and we must exploit those ideas fully in order to improve our skills. That also means opening up the excellent research facilities at our universities, so that small and large businesses can take advantage of them.
	In my maiden speech, I said that my constituents and, indeed, people throughout Wales wanted work, not benefits. They wanted opportunities to enrich their lives through education, and no one will leave education today and have a job for life. Everyone will have to retrain and reskill throughout their working lives, and no one should sit at home surviving on benefits if they can work. Indeed, if we are to achieve the goal of ensuring that people throughout Wales have jobs, not benefits, we must face up to the challenge of the knowledge revolution.
	Even though we live in a global economy, there are those who believe that we should embrace a narrow, nationalist and separatist agenda. They claim that Wales is so different from England that we would have a better future if we were independent but in Europe. They used to cite Ireland and Iceland, but people do not do that anymore; indeed, all of us have constituents who have lost their life savings in the collapsed Icelandic banking system. All the fantasies about an independent Wales simply do not stack up, because the world economic downturn has proved that the arguments for independence are intellectually, politically and economically bankrupt, and we should have nothing whatever to do with them. There is no logic in Wales leaving a British union of 60 million people to join a European Union of 350 million.

David Jones: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the attitude of the nationalists, but, given his concerns about that, how happy is he that his party is in coalition with them in the Welsh Assembly?

Don Touhig: The Labour party leads the Welsh Assembly, and the policies that the Assembly implements are those of the Labour party. There might be one or two add-ons from some of the other, minor people, but it is a Labour-driven and Labour-led Assembly. After the next election I have no doubt that it will be a Labour-majority Assembly.
	We must continue to be positive about the British Union and the European Union. Europe, and all that it represents for us, means that we have to be a self-confident and outward-looking country, because Europe, which had an important role in our past, will have an important role in our future. The people I have had the privilege of representing in this House for the past 15 years know the meaning of struggle. Even now, despite the great improvements in public services, family incomes and the quality of people's lives, many face problems and worries because of the recent recession, which we are now coming out of. I spoke to traders in Blackwood high street in my constituency last week, and they are finding things tough. Despite that, there is a determination to get through our troubles. There must always be optimism.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen referred to General Dynamics, and I well remember trying to persuade that company to go to Wales and, in particular, locate in Islwyn when we were losing jobs in the steel industry. While I was telling the bosses of General Dynamics here in London that Wales was a good place in which to invest and grow their business, others were saying that Wales was a step away from the soup kitchens, because we were losing those jobs in steel. The company is now established in my constituency, there are more than 800 jobs and it is an employer of regional significance. I echo my right hon. Friend's words and wish it well in its bid to secure the FRES contract, upon which the Ministry of Defence will soon decide.
	No matter how difficult the road ahead may seem and no matter how hard it is to come to terms with the adversity and setbacks that we all face, we must not lose the faith that we, as a nation, will come through the current economic difficulties. There is still a strong community feeling in the valleys of my constituency-a feeling of belonging. Generations of families in the valleys have been tested in the white heat of the furnace of struggle and hardship over the years. Our fathers and mothers all went through that struggle, but, like people everywhere, the people I know, represent and live among want the best for themselves, their children and their grandchildren. They want work, not benefits, opportunities to enrich their lives through education and a decent standard of living and a decent health service.
	People in Islwyn, like people throughout Wales and the United Kingdom, will soon have to make an important choice about the future of our country. It will be between a future with fairness and social justice at its heart and one that puts the recovery, public services and jobs at risk. The people will have to decide between a Tory party that will jeopardise the economy and risk our health service, education system and jobs, and a Labour party that will sustain the recovery and protect our public services.
	My name will not be on the ballot paper in Islwyn when the general election comes. However, I feel sure that people there will choose once again to support the Labour party, which will ensure that they have a future. I feel sure that they will not turn to the same old Tories who let them down in the past. I fervently hope that, like the people of Islwyn, the people of the United Kingdom will have the good sense to return a Labour Government.

Hywel Williams: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). We might not always see eye to eye on politics, but no one can doubt his passion, consistency and deep commitment to his people in Islwyn. I take this opportunity to thank him personally for the kindness that he has shown me and my family during my time in the House.
	St. David's day is approaching, so this is a good time for Welsh people to look back and look forward-as a Welsh nationalist, I am certainly in the business of looking forward rather than back. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who is travelling to Cardiff for an engagement this evening and cannot be with us this afternoon.
	We are approaching St. David's day, Dydd Gwyl Dewi Sant. As a non-commercial break, there will be a service on Monday at St. Mary Undercroft. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) will be reading, as will the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). This year, I am glad to say that Mr. Speaker has also consented to read during the service. I hope to see as many hon. Members there as possible.
	St. David, or Dewi Sant, said that we should keep the faith, do the small things and be joyous-those were his injunctions. It might not be easy to carry them out in the current circumstances, for in the past year we have seen unprecedented economic turmoil and great difficulties, particularly in the financial sector.
	It would be remiss of me not to begin by noting the tragedy of the continuing war in Afghanistan. Our service personnel have faced death and injury over many years, as have so many of the Afghan population. In making that point and extending my sympathy to the families involved, I wish to emphasise the Plaid Cymru policy. We have repeatedly opposed the war. We have called, and call now, for a phased withdrawal, peace negotiations and the installation of a United Nations peacekeeping force.
	I turn to the domestic front. The banks have started paying enormous bonuses again, but unfortunately the people of Wales have yet to reap the full and disastrous effects of the economic whirlwind brought on by the barely controlled financial sector in the City of London. So few of the people of Wales benefited from that sector, although we are, of course, paying for it now.
	I repeat a point made my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy that there was an opportunity to put more controls on the banks at an earlier stage. The Royal Bank of Scotland is, of course, publicly owned, and it is a disgrace that it seems ready to pay out so much money in bonuses. The people in Wales and the UK will come to their own opinion about that.

Albert Owen: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is really disappointed to see those large bonuses being paid out, particularly from banks that have received taxpayers' money. However, does he not acknowledge that, had the Government not taken an interventionist role in the banking and financial institutions, there would have been great turmoil for ordinary citizens in his constituency and mine? To have sat back, done nothing and left things to the market would have been an even worse path to follow.

Hywel Williams: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman in that respect, but I would look at the whole piece and go a bit further back to the rip-roaring days when people were carrying shed-loads of money out of the City of London, which was allowed to happen without sufficient regulation. Points could have been made earlier on about the way in which the banks, having received all this public money, with one of them being largely publicly owned, should have acted as regards bonuses.

Cheryl Gillan: I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, but in the lobby briefing this morning-we all receive Gallery News in our e-mails-it was pointed out that the Royal Bank of Scotland has agreed to give bonuses to people earning less than £39,000 a year, the lowest-paid members of staff. The briefing said that that was entirely in line with what the Prime Minister has been saying. The lobby spokesman said that RBS is a very good example of having taken on board what the Prime Minister has been saying on bank bonuses. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that news, as I do.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Lady has the advantage of me, as I have not seen that briefing. However, the fact remains that RBS is going to spend £1.3 billion on bonuses; whether that is the only way in which it can operate its businesses is another matter.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hywel Williams: Briefly.

Lembit �pik: I do not want to prolong the debate about the British banking system, but I gently highlight to the hon. Gentleman something that has been made clear to me by those in the banking system-that they regard bonuses as a traditional part of how they remunerate their staff. In order to get away from this situation completely, they will have to change their system completely, because it does not look good. However, I am cautious about completely condemning bonuses, because, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has rightly pointed out, they seem to have listened to the Prime Minister's advice.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes his point.
	There have already been increases in unemployment in Wales and, despite the efforts of the Government in Cardiff and, to be fair, the steps taken by the Government here-the future jobs fund is a welcome step-further increases in joblessness loom. As we in Wales are so heavily dependent on employment in the public sector, any cuts in the public sector will have a disproportionate effect. We are determined to foster and grow the other part of the Welsh economy-the part that generates the wealth. I am glad to pay special tribute to the work of the Deputy First Minister, Ieuan Wyn Jones, who has shown real talent in a big, and possibly the most onerous, job in the Welsh Government.
	Let me look at the local situation in my own constituency. Last week, I visited a company called Welcome Furniture, which has rescued a furniture-making business in Caernarfon that crashed, mainly because it was Irish-owned-the acknowledged difficulties in the Irish economy meant that the subsidiary in Wales also faced difficulties. With a great deal of short-term help from the Welsh Assembly and the local authority, the business has been able to re-establish itself, and it now employs 77 people, which is more people than it employed previously.
	Unfortunately, in the past year we have seen the loss of a large public sector project that would have generated large numbers of jobs in my constituency, as well as in Ynys Môn and other areas. I am referring, of course, to the prison project in Caernarfon. It was a particular disappointment that that was abandoned. The Welsh Affairs Committee looked into prison provision several years ago, at my suggestion, and we were very pleased to see the announcement about the prison in Caernarfon. The Committee is looking at the matter again, and we will be reporting on it. No doubt the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) will refer to that in his speech.

Albert Owen: I shared the hon. Gentleman's disappointment when the Caernarfon project did not go ahead, and I backed the attempts by him and members of the Welsh Affairs Committee to ensure that there was a prison in north-west Wales. He will be aware that Isle of Anglesey county council and I have led a delegation to the Ministry of Justice to find suitable sites in Anglesey. Would he support any proposed development there?

Hywel Williams: I certainly support the prosperity that would come from such a project, which would spill over into my constituency. What is more, it would hopefully provide the prison facility that we have needed in north Wales for such a long time. I would like it to contain a facility for young people and one for women, but we await the announcements.
	The people of Caernarfon, both the minority who were against the prison-a number had legitimate fears, although I believe that they could have been assuaged-and the rather larger group in favour, all engaged in reasoned and adult debate, and we did the necessary preparatory work in both the public and private sector. The latter was keen to take part. I pay tribute to Gwynedd county council, under the leadership of Dyfed Edwards. The prison project in Caernarfon might be no more, but any prospective investor in Arfon can be confident of meeting a positive and expert response, and it is definitely open for business.
	In the past year we have also seen the passing, at last, of the Welsh language legislative competence order, which was of particularly satisfaction to me and to many people across Wales who have been campaigning for a long time for the emancipation of the Welsh language. I was particularly glad of the positive contribution made by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, the Welsh Language Society. It has its campaigning methods and its work to do, and its tactics are not the ones that I would choose, but its contribution to the consideration of the LCO should be a matter of pride to it. It showed yet again that it is in the forefront of positive and creative thinking about the future of the language, and it certainly has a great deal more work to do in that field. I hope that soon, a Measure will be published setting up a language commissioner, which would the first such step by the Assembly. There will be many more to be taken afterwards.
	The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), who is unfortunately not here this afternoon, scored a success yesterday with his Bill regarding marriage in Wales. It took about 10 minutes to pass through its Committee stage and attracted brief contributions from a large number of Welsh Members-it was a good-humoured occasion. I have no truck with envy, but I point out to Ministers and the official Opposition that my Bill to allow the registration of births and deaths in Welsh enjoys wide cross-party support and support across Wales. In the coming year, it would be fitting if the House were to match the Welsh Assembly Government's positive steps in legislating on the Welsh language by making available parliamentary time for what I claim is a most worthwhile Bill. While I am on the subject of my own efforts in this field, I point to my proposed bilingual juries Bill, which also commands support across Wales, significantly so in the legal profession.
	It would be remiss of me not to note the quickening pace of change in the legal profession in Wales. We now have a Welsh circuit and a growing body of Welsh law. All the more reason, therefore, to establish a Welsh jurisdiction and make policing in Wales the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government.

Julie Morgan: In view of the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made, does he agree that it is important to retain a good representation of the Legal Services Commission in Wales, so that it can provide the services that are needed?

Hywel Williams: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady and I am very glad that there was co-operation on both sides of the House and in the Welsh Affairs Committee when we addressed that matter, which we have hopefully done successfully.
	Less positively, I must note the problems with the housing legislative competence order, which has still not passed after some 32 months. The Welsh Affairs Committee raised some fundamental points about the first version, but as a Committee, we acted quickly-there are sometimes complaints that matters are held up by the Committee, but I do not believe that that happened in this case. Of course, there has been a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing between Cardiff and London, which I am sure will be the subject of the Committee's forthcoming report on Wales and Whitehall. Perhaps the Chairman of the Committee rather than I will say more about that.
	The evidence that the Committee took, which is publicly available, shows a lack of awareness of the nature of devolution among civil service personnel in London. Interestingly, Rhodri Morgan said that dealing with Whitehall was like being the First Minister of the last colony. That may be a Rhodri-ism, but it is very revealing. We must struggle on with the LCO system, but many in Wales and in this House look forward to the referendum, and the establishment-at last-of full and proper law-making powers for the Senedd in Cardiff.
	Looking forward to the election, Plaid Cymru has a number of policies on key issues, including child poverty, but I should like to talk about pensioner poverty and our living pension policy. According to Age Concern, older people say that tackling pensioner poverty and reforming the struggling care system are top priorities for them, so let me put this plainly: ending pensioner poverty should be at the top of the agenda for any party of government or any aspiring party of government, and Labour and Tory alike have failed to some extent in that respect over many decades. Indeed, coming up to the general election, the London parties seem obsessed with outbidding one another on cuts to public services and privatisation agendas.
	The point is that so much of the policy debate is about English policy, but, for example, health and education-two major issues-are devolved to Wales. By the same token, of course, they are devolved to England, so it is a two-way street. By the way, I never hear people in Wales complaining about quasi-devolution to England; they seem much more concerned with devolution in Wales. The truth is that in the crucial matters of health and education, this Parliament often acts as England's Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition might pledge on billboards not to cut the NHS, but he should add, in England, which would clarify the matter for people in Wales.

David Jones: Is it not the case that preserving the NHS budget would also benefit Wales through the Barnett formula?

Hywel Williams: Indeed it would, but the public debate so often seems to be on features of the NHS in England. Perhaps that will change as the election approaches.
	On the care at home Green Paper, which is another concern of older people, the UK Government have long promised to do something about the cost of care, dating back well into the last century. The Green Paper that was rolled out could apply directly only to England, because care is devolved, but then disability living allowance and attendance allowance came to the fore, and it was said that they could be used to pay for care. The implications of the Green Paper for Wales were unclear. Vulnerable people in Wales who depend on the DLA and attendance allowance were alarmed by press reports, some of which were extremely unclear, and many of which did not refer to the England-only nature of the proposals. Those proposals have changed steadily, and I understand that now the intention is that, for existing claimants and those over 65, the DLA and attendance allowance will be looked at for those in England only. I look forward to the Government explaining this issue further.
	The Conservative proposals for residential care costs are even more irrelevant to Wales, given that they depend on the taking out of insurance policies at a cost of £8,000-although the figures are disputed and others say that the real costs would be somewhat higher. There would be a problem for Welsh pensioners who depend on the retirement pension. Age Concern says that all older people should enjoy an adequate standard of living, but 119,000 Welsh pensioners are living in poverty. That is why we would introduce our policy of a living pension, to bring together the pension credit and the current retirement pension, which would be paid for out of the tax relief that now goes to higher rate taxpayers on their pension contributions.
	This will be a very important election. All the polls now point to a Parliament with no party in overall control, so there will be an opportunity to hear the voices of the people of Wales which are so often submerged in the big party battles in this place.
	I said earlier that St. David had several injunctions for us, including the exhortation to be joyous. I am afraid that my speech has been somewhat pessimistic, but I am by nature an optimist, and I have a deep belief in the ability of the people of Wales to overcome difficulties. We are survivors, as demonstrated by our mastery of the elements of the industrial revolution, the overcoming of the terrible depression of the 1930s and the relative prosperity of the 1960s and 1970s, and our coping with the disaster of Tory rule under Mrs. Thatcher and then under Mr. Major. However, we can be much more than survivors if we so choose. There is a carping tendency in Wales. We can talk ourselves down, but I do not want to be part of that.
	I am a great admirer of Idris Davies-I suppose that I should call him the socialist poet-the author of Gwalia Deserta and The Angry Summer: A Poem of 1926. I should point out to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) that Idris Davies was also a Plaid Cymru member, at least in his last days. He was remarkably prescient. In his poem, The Telephones are Ringing, he may have been foreseeing recent events in this place when he says:
	The telephones are ringing
	and treachery is in the air
	and the smooth ones, the experts at compromise
	are bowing in Whitehall.

David Davies: I, too, am fond of Idris Davies's poems, and one of his more famous ones was When we walked to Merthyr Tydfil. Of course he would not have needed to walk there had there been a Conservative Government, because we invested millions of pounds in the Heads of the Valleys road and other dual carriageways to allow new industry to get into those valleys.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman now has the headline for his next press release.
	Idris Davies was often viewed as the poet of the depression, but he had some very funny things to say as well. I came across a poem about the people who have a tendency to talk Wales down:
	They don't like Sunday concerts
	Or women playing ball
	They don't like William Parry much
	Or Shakespeare at all.
	And when they go to Heaven
	They won't like that too well,
	For the music will be sweeter
	Than the music played in Hell.
	I am not one of those looking for the miserabilist option. I do not say, That is not for us, we cannot do it. That is the Welsh voice, the half-mocking self-doubt combined with the blind fervour that we deserve better, that we can do better. The second tendency is the one that we should foster, and that is the duty of every democratic representative from Wales.
	We should not always say no, or refuse change. Instead, we should set the abilities and the aspirations of the people of Wales free. We have a duty to make and remake our nation, and that is a duty that I commend to the Welsh Members of this House.

Julie Morgan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate held on St. David's day. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). I want to echo many of the points made, particularly from the Labour Benches, and to wish all retiring Members all the best for the future-they have been good friends and comrades.
	Like the hon. Member for Caernarfon, I am an optimist and have great hope and confidence in what we can achieve in Wales. I do not play down the amount of suffering during the recession in my constituency, but despite all that I see great signs of hope. As I mentioned earlier, my constituency has seen a growth in the number of private companies and jobs, and last week I visited the partially built positron emission tomography-PET-scanner in the Heath hospital, which will be one of the most advanced scanners in the UK and the world. It is able to detect cancers and other diseases at a very early stage, because it detects the movement of cells. It is a miracle of engineering. I visited it and thought it one of the most advanced mechanisms of medical discovery in the world-and it has been built for the Health hospital and the health service in Cardiff. That is a huge tribute to what we can achieve.
	Recently, I also visited many schools in my constituency to look at the new three to seven-year-old learn-through-play foundation phase. Huge resources have been put into that, and it is a delight to visit. Most of all, visiting the foundation phase classes, I was struck by the huge enthusiasm of the teachers. They said, This is what we have always wanted for education. We want children to learn in this way, when they can express themselves. I am sure that it will be of long-term benefit to the children in Wales.
	Those are just a few of the things that have given me this feeling of great optimism recently. However, I want to use most of my contribution to concentrate on one particular constituency issue-the big threat to the Llanishen reservoir in my constituency, and the threat to Cardiff as a whole. The threat has been of development and of concreting over part of the Llanishen reservoir, and the newest threat is of draining the reservoir. I have been campaigning on this issue for eight years, and I am sure that everybody here is probably fed up of hearing me mention it. I remember raising it at nearly every session of business questions when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was Leader of the House.
	I am sure that most people here would have thought that this issue was settled and do not want to listen to me going on about it again. However, we are in a difficult situation. Western Power Distribution, which is a subsidiary of Pennsylvania Power and Light, has spent eight years trying to build a housing estate on Llanishen reservoir. Several planning applications have failed and there have been several appeals. There is no permission to build, and the plans are contrary to the existing council policy and the local development plan. The plans have also been strongly opposed by the local reservoir action group, and I would like to pay tribute to its present chairman, Andrew Hill, and its past chairman, Ted Thurgood, for their magnificent efforts in opposing the development.
	Cardiff, unlike some cities, does not really have a green belt, but has four green wedges that follow the rivers that enter the city. Those green wedges go right down into the centre of the city, which gives the opportunity for many people in Cardiff to benefit from greenness, even if they live right in the centre of the town. Llanishen reservoir is based in one of these wedges, and development has always been forbidden in the Nant Fawr corridor. Despite the council's policy to keep the corridor for nature and greenery, WPD has engaged in eight years of attrition, seeking to build on, and now drain, the reservoir.
	The reservoir is a hugely attractive amenity. Cardiff council has a sailing school there, where youngsters learn to sail, and it has unique water, which is absolutely pure, being made up entirely of rainwater. If someone falls out of the boat into Llanishen reservoir, there is no fear of suffering the effects of pollution.
	Last Friday we received a telephone call at my office. It was reported to me that there was a lot of commotion up at the reservoir, so I went there personally and saw that pipes had been delivered and a unit set up. There were two security guards, who refused to grant me entry, and preparations for the draining of the reservoir had begun. WPD's justification for draining the reservoir is based on a 2008 report by a Dr. Andy Hughes, a dam engineer employed by the developer. The only recommendation in the report that is legally enforceable by the Environment Agency does not require the emptying of the reservoir. We fear that WPD is proceeding to drain the reservoir in order to make its planning application more likely to succeed.
	Mark Acford, the enforcement officer in reservoir safety at the Environment Agency in Exeter, confirmed in writing to WPD on 18 February that Dr. Hughes's report does not specifically require a draw-down of the reservoir in the interests of safety. We now know that Dr. Hughes had inaccurate information. He thought that a draw-down would enable pipes at the bottom of the reservoir to be inspected for safety, but it is now known that those pipes are encased in concrete. He had also been told that there were regular leaks from a pipe that leads out from the reservoir, but that pipe has never leaked.
	Because it was known that Dr. Hughes had based other suggestions that a draw-down was needed on incorrect information, RAG, the local action group, commissioned one of the most experienced and qualified water engineers in the country, Mr. Chris Binnie, to prepare a review of the situation. His detailed report, which is now fully in the public domain, is adamant that the emptying of the reservoir is not needed, either on safety grounds or to carry out the required survey. Mr. Binnie confirms in his report that he has spoken to Dr. Hughes on several occasions and had a meeting with him. Binnie confirms in his executive summary on page 2 that Dr. Hughes has said that
	based on the information provided by RAG, he-
	Dr. Hughes-
	should reconsider his recommendations,
	but that he has
	been instructed by his client not to communicate.
	Binnie says that Hughes was unaware when he wrote his report in 2008 of the new information now to hand, which makes emptying the reservoir unnecessary. However, despite formal requests, he is refusing to review his recommendations.
	We are therefore in a difficult situation. The threatened draining of the reservoir will have dire consequences for people in my constituency and in Cardiff generally. The youth sailing centre would be out of action for eight years, which is how long it would take to fill the reservoir up with rainwater. The ecology of the reservoir would be lost. It contains 300 million gallons of pure rainwater. There would be a threat of pollution to the streams that lead into Roath Park lake, with 10,000 cubic metres of silt being discharged.
	There would also be likely structural damage to the clay core of the dam if it was left empty for a long period, as clay must be kept wet. Fissures or cracks would develop, and in those circumstances it would be easy for a leak to spring and the reservoir never to be refilled. That is important because the reservoir is now a listed building-the entire structure has been listed by Cadw-so any risk of damage is a criminal offence. Binnie says that if the reservoir was empty for six months, it could be damaged. Some precautionary action must be taken. In my view, the council or Cadw have the grounds to take out an injunction because of the damage that could be caused.
	The fundamental issues are that Hughes is refusing to consider his report in light of new evidence. That raises issues about his professional integrity. RAG did not criticise his initial report on the grounds that he had incorrect information, but the two reasons that he gave for draining the reservoir are no longer valid, and it seems that Hughes is being muzzled by his client. I am pleased to have the opportunity to lay that out publicly today. I feel strongly that something must be done. Two engineers are fundamentally disagreeing about the way ahead, and one engineer is refusing to consider new evidence. Is there any way in which the Secretary of State could intervene, or ask Welsh Assembly Ministers to intervene? Perhaps the Institution of Civil Engineers could appoint an adjudicator to consider both reports. We need a cessation of draining while a review takes place. We need a stay of execution.
	I strongly believe that Cardiff city council has the power to issue an injunction to stop the draining of the reservoir, because its sailing school is threatened. I also think that Cadw could issue an injunction to stop the damage being done to the listed building. Many of my constituents feel very strongly about this, and there is a strong campaign being run by the local newspaper, the  South Wales Echo. Many people have written to WPD's parent company in the United States to highlight the strength of feeling, not only in my constituency but in the whole of the Cardiff area, that this reservoir and its area of natural beauty-which includes a site of special scientific interest-should be preserved. WPD has power and money. It has put up its dreadful steel fences and brought in its security guards. It seems absolutely determined to destroy this listed monument in the SSSI, which is part of the Nant Fawr corridor and is one of the features that gives Cardiff its uniqueness.
	I am glad to have had the chance to put this situation on record today. I am appealing to the Secretary of State to see whether there is anything that he can do. There are many other important issues affecting my constituency, but I have chosen this one because it has touched so many people in Cardiff, North, and because of the many aspects-recreation, beauty, greenness and wildlife-that are so important for communities.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and allowing me to respond briefly. I am well aware of her passionate defence of the reservoir; I recall her raising the subject regularly. I will certainly look into the matter carefully, as Secretary of State, and in any case raise it with the First Minister, as she has requested.

Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments. I hope that he will be able to do something, or at least encourage others to do something. With that, I shall conclude my remarks.

David Davies: I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few words. I should like to follow up on points raised by the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). I have a great deal of respect for both of them, and I shall miss the right hon. Gentleman. It was slightly disappointing, however, if not entirely surprising, that both of them chose to repeat a rather one-sided view of the economic history of this country of the past 20 years.
	The right hon. Lady seems to forget that people in Wales suffered far more in the 1970s, when interest rates were higher than they ever were under a Conservative Government. The industrial chaos that was wreaked by the previous Labour Government is mirrored by the financial chaos that has been imposed on us by the current one. She also gave the House a rather one-sided view of the miners' strike. She forgot a couple of key points. First, the Labour Government of Harold Wilson closed down far more mines than the Conservative Government of Mrs. Thatcher. Secondly, the miners were not given any opportunity to vote on whether they wished to go on strike, in Wales or anywhere else, during that strike. They were being used by the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers to try to bring down a democratically elected Government, just as they were used in the early 1970s. It was for that reason that the miners' union leaders did not get the support of the Government, or of leading members of the Opposition either.
	The Secretary of State made pretty much the same speech that he always makes, attacking Conservative policy on everything that happened during the 1980s while skimming briefly over the record of the Labour Government of the past 12 or 13 years. I do not want to rehearse all the economic arguments, the arguments about the health service and so on. I just want to draw his attention to a few key cases in my constituency that demonstrate the failure of Labour in Parliament and in the Welsh Assembly.
	The Secretary of State spoke first about the economy, and rightly so. He painted a rosy picture. One thing he certainly did not mention was the Severn bridge and its impact on the economy in Wales at the moment. He must be perfectly well aware that the Humber bridge has had a freeze put on any increases in tolls as a result, the Government said, of the bad economic crisis. I have looked at the matter, and users of the Humber bridge pay roughly the same as users of the Severn bridge, albeit that the charging mechanism is slightly different. I cannot understand why people living in the Humber area of England can escape a rise in fees-I wish them all the best and I do not criticise the Government for that-while Welsh people, especially those living in south Wales who commute over the Severn bridge every day, are being treated like second-class citizens and are not being given the same rights as people living in the Humber area. Could it be that there is a Labour marginal seat in Humber, and that the Government are simply trying to buy votes? I would welcome clarification from the Minister with responsibility for that.
	I go around my constituency speaking to people in business, and they do not recognise the rosy picture painted by the Secretary of State. I recently met David Bone, an engineer and the director of Ocean Resource Ltd, which creates designs for oil refineries and wind farms. He is a successful entrepreneur and a man who is actually doing things that can help to build the economy. He tells me that he has contacted the Welsh Assembly on numerous occasions to discuss aspects of grant funding, and that he has never even received the courtesy of a reply. I find that absolutely reprehensible. I have spent a long time talking to him, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. He tells me categorically that he has corresponded with Ministers in the Welsh Assembly and that none of them had the courtesy even to write back to him, which is extraordinary.
	Mr. Bone also raised the issue of the green economy, which we all agree needs to be developed in this country. Wales could be a beacon of excellence for green jobs. He raised concerns about the Energy Technologies Institute, which is partly funded by Government money and ought to support industries in the United Kingdom, but appears to spend a lot of its money supporting industries from other parts of Europe. If we are serious about developing the green economy and green jobs, we need to ensure that any public money from British taxpayers is spent on British businesses.
	On training and so on, the rosy picture that the Secretary of State paints does not correspond with what is seen by my constituents. In that regard, I want to raise the issue of apprenticeships. Recently, a 20-year-old, Damien Radnor of Raglan, came to see me. He is a very enthusiastic, intelligent and articulate young man, who looked around and realised that the country had a shortage of electricians. He spent two years in a local college near Monmouthshire-just outside my constituency, but that is not important-training to become an electrician. He needs to spend a further year working as an apprentice, with an electrician, to complete his course in college. Despite his having written to more than 40 people-I have seen the letters-all have had to turn him down. They are not taking on apprentices, for a variety of reasons: employment legislation makes it difficult; there is no real money to support employers who want to take on apprentices. Consequently, everyone's time and money is being wasted. This young man gave up a well-paid job to study, and spent two years of his life and a lot of money on the process. Presumably, the college course would have been subsidised in some way by the Government, so taxpayer's money was being spent as well. At the end of it, a bright and enthusiastic young man, who wants to go out and work and is willing to write to everyone he can think of, is unable to get a placement as an apprentice. The Secretary of State may shake his head, but I could introduce him to that young man, and I assure him that that is exactly what has happened. More needs to be done to help young people who want apprenticeships.
	We have heard, of course, about the national health service. Someone said that it had been invented by Labour in the teeth of opposition. That is the sort of one-sided view of history that Labour Members get away with all too often. The reality is that people were not dying in the streets before the health service was formed. Moreover, it was not really a Labour Government who invented it. If anything, it was invented by a civil servant called Beveridge during the second world war. It was accepted by Members in all parts of the House that the national health service, in one form or another, would be introduced after the second world war regardless of who won the election. A health service was already functioning- [Interruption.] Hon. Members may shake their heads and laugh if they want to.

Albert Owen: The social policies devised by Beveridge, which were introduced by the Labour Government in the NHS more than 60 years ago, were opposed by the Conservative party at the time. That is a fact and is on the record of the House, and the hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge it.

David Davies: What I will acknowledge is this. Beveridge's report was published in, I believe, 1942. It was certainly published while the country was being led by a Conservative Prime Minister. No one at that time disputed the central basis of the report.

Lembit �pik: rose-

David Davies: I will give way in a moment, because I am not afraid to debate the real history of this country with anyone.
	There were probably arguments about the way in which the health service would be introduced, but there is no doubt that no Member wanted to see people dying in the streets, and that had not happened before the introduction of the national health service. It did not happen afterwards either, but I am afraid that thousands of needless deaths are taking place now. I am not talking just about the recent ones that we all know about. This has been going on for far too long, and one of the reasons, I believe, is that anyone who tries to make any criticism of the NHS is immediately accused of wanting to get rid of it, although in fact most Conservative Members want to see it function better.

Lembit �pik: I hold the hon. Gentleman in high regard, and I am grateful to him for giving way. I should say, however, that Beveridge-who was a Liberal-would quite evidently have failed in his ambition to introduce the NHS had the Conservatives won the general election in 1945. The hon. Gentleman has accused other hon. Members of rewriting history, but what he has said constitutes the most flagrant rewriting of history that we have heard all day.

David Davies: I look forward to returning to that piece of history on another occasion, but now I want to talk about the present.
	I am a user of the NHS. All my children were born in NHS hospitals, except one who was born at home with the help of NHS staff. One of my children has had to spend consecutive Christmases in hospital, once in eastern Europe and once in the United Kingdom. The staff in both hospitals were superb-I have no complaint whatsoever about them-but the standards in a not particularly prosperous part of rural eastern Europe were at least as good as those in Abergavenny.
	In that hospital in rural Hungary my daughter had her own room, as did everyone else. There was always a doctor on the ward, never more than a few paces away, 24 hours a day. That is not the experience of people who come into contact with the NHS in the United Kingdom. So please let us not tell ourselves that the NHS is the envy of the world. It is not. There are problems with it, and we should not be blind to them. We should not allow ourselves to ignore any criticisms of the organisation of the NHS for fear of criticising the staff, and I should make it clear that I do not in any way criticise the staff.
	Let me give an example of how the health service is letting people down. Another of my constituents, 93-year-old Reginald Lewis, who is in the Severn View residential home in Chepstow, asked me to raise his case in the House today. He served in the armed forces, he has worked all his life, and he is paying his own fees at the nursing home of £1,700 a month. He has an open leg wound. He says that the nursing staff have been excellent in trying to treat him, but his condition is simply not getting better. He went to see a doctor, and was told-a 93-year-old man who had served in the armed forces-that he would have to wait six to 12 months before anyone from the NHS would even look at the wound or do anything about it. That is absolutely disgraceful.
	Finally, as issues affecting elderly people were rightly mentioned earlier, I shall now raise the issue of pensions. The Secretary of State was responsible, in one of his many previous guises, for setting up the Pension Protection Fund, which comes into effect when companies go bankrupt by, effectively, taking over the pension scheme and paying people 90 per cent. of their pension. It is not a bad idea to give the Secretary of State credit where it is due, and some is due in this instance, so I shall give it to him without any malice. However, he seems to have overlooked one important point: a lot of people whose companies went bankrupt and whose schemes were taken over by the PPF have been let down because prior to working in the companies that went bankrupt they had other jobs.
	Mrs. Jordan came to see me about this matter. She had worked for a different company for a number of years, and she transferred her pension rights into the new company, which then went bankrupt. It was taken over by the PPF and she was told she would get a pension of about 90 per cent., which is £13,000 a year. That was not good news for her, but neither was it a life-changing disaster. The PPF subsequently discovered a legal loophole, however, which allowed it to reduce her pension by the amount that had been paid in from the previous company, because when the PPF takes over a scheme, it takes over only that scheme, and only the pension rights paid directly into the company that has gone bankrupt are credited towards the individual, not any previous pension moneys from other companies that have been paid into the scheme of the company that has gone bankrupt. Effectively, therefore, Mrs. Jordan has been robbed of a large sum of her pension, and the capital money has gone to the PPF, which is using it for other things. I acknowledge that that point is a little complicated, but there will be many people who are in the same position as Mrs. Jordan in that they have lost out on money that should be rightfully theirs as a result of this loophole. We should not be using legal loopholes when dealing with paying people's pensions. We should be looking at what is right and fair, and doing the right thing by people.
	I have probably spoken for long enough, as I want every hon. Member who wishes to do so to be able to contribute. I shall conclude by echoing the words of a previous, well-known Labour leader. What will happen if Labour gets re-elected again? Based on the experience of my constituents, I warn you not to try to set up a business; I warn you not to try to better yourself by going to university or trying to get an apprenticeship; I warn you not to get ill; and I warn you not to get old.

Hywel Francis: May I begin by paying tribute to all the Welsh members of our armed forces in Afghanistan, particularly those who, sadly, have been killed in the service of our country, including Corporal Dean John from my constituency? We should also not forget their families, many of whom are very active in voluntary organisations. For example, Dean's mother, Mrs. Deborah John, is very active and doing outstanding work in our area in the well-known organisation SAFFA-the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association.
	We should also remember the work of the Royal British Legion. I am sure many Members on both sides of the House would join me in endorsing the RBL general election manifesto. Many of my constituents have drawn it to my attention, and I am delighted to endorse that manifesto. Two of them, Tom Fellows and Roger Sheppard, have been doing some excellent work in recent years. I wish to draw particular attention to two policies in the manifesto, which have already been referred to by many Members:
	Make the NHS priority treatment system work for veterans with injuries caused by Service in the Armed Forces
	and, Tackle poverty among older veterans and widows.
	As many Members have said, this Welsh day debate provides us with a welcome opportunity to reflect on our work over the last year and to look forward to the future. In the past year, we all looked back on what I, and many Members on both sides of the House, would call a decade of achievement in democratic devolution, or as my distinguished predecessor, Lord Morris of Aberavon, rightly and often termed it, the repatriation of power to Wales.
	I am proud to say, as an enthusiastic supporter of democratic devolution, that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I chair, has had a growing and always benign role in that process, both scrutinising Government policy and, in more recent times, working with our Welsh Assembly colleagues on pre-legislative scrutiny of LCOs. In a remarkably busy, almost frenetic, five years, the Committee has held 43 inquiries, ranging from the mammoth globalisation inquiry that took place over 18 months, where we called senior Burberry executives to account, to the one-day sitting on the Legal Services Commission. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) for her work in that field. When we held that inquiry we successfully called Government Ministers to account. I should add that 25 of these inquiries took place in the past two years, when we were also undertaking our LCO work.
	It has been an exceptionally busy last year for the Welsh Affairs Committee. About half our work over the past 12 months has been on scrutinising LCOs and thus devolving further powers to the Assembly. As we have heard from other hon. Members, these included the Welsh language LCO, which has now received Royal Assent and has paved the way for new Measures relating to the Welsh language to be passed in the Assembly. The publication of our enlightened and unanimous report was arguably our greatest achievement over the past five years. The environment LCO has also completed its progress and will enable Wales to lead the way in tackling pollution and litter and in encouraging recycling.
	The Committee recently reported on its 15th LCO and has now completed work on all the LCOs that have been laid before the House. That is surprising, given that two years ago many people outside this House would not have believed that we could have done this work. Despite much doom and gloom in those quarters-people were daunted by what they described as complexity and did not understand that all legislative processes are complex-we did win through in the end. I wish to thank all the members of the Committee for their dedication and commitment to completing this scrutiny work in a timely and very thorough fashion. Whether the latest LCOs complete their remaining parliamentary stages will depend on the date of the general election, but my Committee has worked hard to make sure that they have every chance of doing so.
	I am pleased that our work has been recognised elsewhere, and not only in debates in this House. For example, it was recognised by Sir Gus O'Donnell, the head of the civil service, when he gave evidence to us recently as part of our current inquiry into the relationship between Wales and Whitehall. It will be the last major inquiry that the Committee undertakes during this Parliament, but it will also be one of the most important. It was inspired by a short inquiry that we completed last year into the decision by the Legal Services Commission to scale down its operations in Cardiff. That decision was taken without consulting the Welsh Assembly Government or the Wales Office, and with no regard to increasing legal divergence post devolution. As a result of our inquiry, the LSC has not implemented its planned changes and is reconsidering its decisions. That is just one example of a decision being made centrally with no proper awareness of its potential impact on Wales.
	Equally, we have also heard about decisions being made in Cardiff without full regard for the impact they may have on those needing to cross the border regularly. We have continued to investigate cross-border services for people who travel between England and Wales for health care and education, as well as the quality of cross-border transport links. We believe that our work in this area has improved access to hospitals and colleges for those living near the border, who have sometimes suffered from gaps in provision when the different policies of the UK Government and Welsh Assembly Government were not properly joined up.
	We were particularly pleased to have the opportunity to take evidence jointly with the Assembly's Enterprise and Learning Committee on cross-border rail links. I warmly welcome the announcement, as I am sure that colleagues from all parties will, that the great western main line between Swansea and London is to be electrified, as our Committee strongly recommended shortly before the announcement was made. We will shortly publish a follow-up report to our cross-border inquiry.
	The evidence we have taken during our current inquiry into Wales and Whitehall has shown that devolution requires both Cardiff and London to be committed to communicating properly with one another and considering the impacts of their policies at both ends of the M4. Wales's interests must be considered when UK policy is developed, but the communication problems we have uncovered do not go only in one direction. It is important not only that Members of this House understand that, but that the media should convey that message. I think that the situation is improving, with greater awareness being shown by all parties, perhaps as a result of some of my Committee's inquiries-and I am sure that our forthcoming report will contribute to improving relationships still further.
	Let me now make some positive observations about the coming period on the basis of recent oral evidence given to our Committee. First, we had a very constructive evidence session with the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Health and Social Services, Mrs. Edwina Hart. It highlighted the possibility that Wales could take a lead on the health and rehabilitation of veterans across the UK. It was an illuminating evidence session and I can see Members nodding about how important Mrs. Hart's evidence was. Her strong desire to work with the Ministry of Defence and with other devolved Administrations provided a policy possibility that the Committee warmly welcomed and that it will consider closely if we have the good fortune to be Members of this House in the new Parliament.
	Secondly, the willingness of senior civil servants to give frank and insightful observations on strategy and performance in our Wales and Whitehall inquiry was another recent welcome development. The process of devolution needs transparency and constant analysis as well as self-criticism from politicians and officials alike. Now that they have come out of the shadows, so to speak, we want to encourage these senior civil servants to come under the spotlight regularly-perhaps appearing before us once a year.
	I am sure that senior civil servants, whether they are in Cardiff Bay or Whitehall, will wish to be measured by the watchword of universities throughout Wales: Goreu Awen Gwirionedd, or The best inspiration is truth. That has certainly been the inspiration of our Committee in its service to the people of Wales. It has been a privilege to have chaired it over the past five years. We have benefited from constructive working relations with two Secretaries of State and two First Ministers. I pay tribute to them all and to the dedicated and professional work of Select Committee staff.
	In conclusion, let me join others in paying tribute to all right hon. and hon. Friends and Members who are standing down at the next general election. In particular, may I pay personal tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), a successful Wales Office and Defence Minister who has worked so hard for miners' compensation and for our veterans? His insightful and independent thinking will be sorely missed in the House, and we all admired the contribution that he made to the debate earlier. I wish him and Jennifer well in the future. If he stands for public office again elsewhere, I have offered to be his election agent.

Lembit �pik: I echo the observations that have just been made regarding our retiring friends.
	If people did not have problems, we would not have jobs, and we sometimes forget the point that David Lloyd George, who was unquestionably the greatest Prime Minister of the 20th century, made when he said:
	The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.
	That is never truer than in periods of economic trouble, and these are tough times. In Montgomeryshire, we have been very busy with closures, with downsizing and with trying to prevent the worst effects of the recession from taking hold. Indeed, we have recently had problems with the potential loss of another 180 jobs, and it has been almost a full-time occupation to try to protect them.
	There have also been threats to our local high schools. The Conservatives leaked a document that caused considerable upset and panic because it suggested that high schools might be closed. There is always an ongoing threat to services in our local hospitals, which remain open in name but which still suffer, to an extent, from reduced services because the health board seems to want to save money by taking away cherished and long-loved local facilities. There is a virtual absence of mental health services; there is an ongoing dispute about wind farms in the area; there are questions about flooding; and there is gridlock in Newtown as a result of new traffic arrangements. There is even talk of some kind of enormous monster living at Clywedog dam. I shall return to those issues later.
	With a general election looming, it is natural for us to look briefly at what is on offer. I think that I am fairly clear about what we get with the Labour party. It has been in government and we know its strengths and weaknesses. Incidentally, something that has almost been forgotten is the difficulty that the Secretary of State for Wales experienced when he had to take a back seat after various accusations were made about him. As I said then, it is a great shame when pressure from opponents in the media can force the temporary demotion of good politicians. I am very pleased that he not only cleared his name but recovered his original position. That was the just outcome of some very unjust accusations.
	We know what Labour offers-I suppose there has been some debate about that today-but I am very concerned that we do not really know what the Conservatives offer. That must be a matter of concern to me as I consider what could happen to my constituents should there be a Conservative Government. There tends to be a sense of defeatism locally at times from the Conservatives in Montgomeryshire about various matters, and I see the same attitude reflected here in Westminster. It is an attitude not of delivery but of criticism, but that is not what our country needs or what my constituents want.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman wonders what the impact of a Conservative Government would be on his constituency-perhaps the first impact would be that his constituency would not exist at all. What are his views on that?

Lembit �pik: I have never got very excited about discussions on the Boundary Commission, but the Leader of the Opposition seems to have set the hare running by making some heady claims about constitutional reforms that would require a reduction in the number of constituencies. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats have said something about that as well. My difficulty with that and other policies is that they always seem half-baked. We do not get the detail and we do not really understand what the specific intentions of a Conservative Government would be, so we are forced to look at the past. When it comes to the banks, I am extremely concerned that the act of electing a Conservative Government, would, by its nature, cause a second recession. We know, from what the Government have had to respond to from Conservative Members, that if the Tories had been in charge during the banking collapse, the banks would have been left to fail.
	There was a degree of vacillation in their policy, but the Tories seem to want to make a virtue of the fact that they would not have supported the action to protect the banks taken at that time, and in extremis, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Cheryl Gillan: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman and want to put him out of his agony. The leader of my party, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), has said that he wants to reduce the number of politicians and the size of Parliament, which has burgeoned and got too big. Like me, however, he has also said that Wales will not be disproportionately represented at Westminster. It will be represented in exactly the same way as any other part of the UK.
	I was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency the other day with our candidate there, Glyn Davies. We were discussing this matter, and it is a comfort to know that under a Conservative Government Wales will always be represented in this place on exactly the same basis as any other part of the UK. I hope that that puts the hon. Gentleman out of his agony.

Lembit �pik: I am sure that the whole House is grateful for that clarification, but I am slightly disappointed, as I thought that the hon. Lady would clarify her party's position on the banks. All the evidence suggests that the economic policies being promoted by the Conservative party over the past two years would have had a catastrophic impact on the British economy, and thus on the constituents of Montgomeryshire.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Lembit �pik: I will, as the hon. Lady seems very keen to respond.

Cheryl Gillan: May I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor's Mais lecture on the new economic model when he goes away from the Chamber?

David Wright: It will only take a few seconds.

Cheryl Gillan: Actually, it will take a little longer, as it is a very worthy document. It proposes a
	new system of financial regulation, with the Bank of England back in charge of controlling the overall level of debt in the economy,
	and a
	new fiscal policy framework, with an independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
	The document also makes it clear that phase 1 of our approach will be the independent OBR, and phase 2 an emergency Budget within 50 days. On phase 3, it says that
	over the Summer we will work flat out to conduct the detailed departmental Spending Review for the years after 2011.
	I recommend the lecture for the hon. Gentleman's reading.

Lembit �pik: It is my birthday next week, so perhaps the hon. Lady will send me a bound copy. If she does, I assure her that I will read little else between now and 6 May.
	Once again, however, the hon. Lady remains silent on the core point that I am making-had the Government been Conservative, the banks would have failed. A Conservative Government would have stood by and done nothing to prevent that.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lembit �pik: I am willing to give way if I have misunderstood what Conservative policy was at the time, but I doubt whether the hon. Lady can say anything different.

Cheryl Gillan: What I want to say is simply that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer supported the rescue of the banks.

Lembit �pik: We need to go back to the evidence. About two decades ago, the pound started falling in the exchange rate mechanism. What did the Conservative Government do? They threw away £12 billion, because they were vacillating and did not know what they needed to do protect sterling. That cost my constituents £20 million in one afternoon. So we do not have to go very far back to see that, when faced with a high-pressure decision that needs to be made in a hurry-exactly as happened with the banks-the Conservatives failed to come up with the goods.
	The hon. Lady can believe anything she wants, but the record shows clearly what was said at the time. My judgment is that the banks would have been allowed to fail, had there been a Conservative Government in charge. That would have stopped us being a banking behemoth in the world, and turned us into an economic banana republic. This country's economic credibility would have failed.
	The outcome could be even worse, now. Perhaps the hon. Lady will correct me if I have misunderstood the Conservative promise to sell off shares in the banks owned by the Government. They are the very asset that stand to pay off a large proportion of the debt. We all understand how that works: the shares were bought at a very low price and they will accrue value over time as things-hopefully-improve.
	We are talking about the shares accruing value to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. We do not need to be economists to work out how the value gained should be used, as the matter is self-evident, but we need to think twice when the economic policy of a Government in waiting is to sell off the assets when they are cheap.
	There is another irony. How many times have we heard the Conservatives criticise the former Chancellor and current Prime Minister for selling gold when it was low in value? In my judgment, that was a mistake, but the Conservatives are about to commit an even bigger mistake by selling those shares at this time. That could cost the constituents of Montgomeryshire as much as £200 million.
	There is another problem. If the Conservatives sell off those shares, they will have to find money from somewhere, but how will they make it? With a colour photocopier? I do not think so. They cannot depend on alternative sources of income, and they will not have an opportunity-a magic box-to print money in order to fill that void. If they sell off the shares cheaply, the practical consequence for Montgomeryshire, Wales and, indeed, the whole country will be a tax increase higher than that that we already anticipate. We would also be likely to see more severe cuts in public services.
	I did economics at university for a period, and I see very clearly that we cannot pretend to have money that does not exist. Will Conservative Front Benchers please, therefore, clarify the economic logic-let alone the morality-of selling off the very shares on which any Government of any colour will depend in order to accrue assets to pay back some of the debt? I am happy to give way if the hon. Lady can do that.
	I was also confused earlier, because I did not receive a satisfactory answer to my question about the minimum wage and a minimum income. For a long time, the Liberal Democrats have supported the idea of a minimum income, and for one glorious moment I thought that the Conservatives supported it, too. If I put together the answers that I received, however, it seems that under a Conservative Government the Montgomeryshire public could depend on neither serious support for the minimum wage nor support for a minimum income. I do not know where that would leave the least well-off in my constituency, but it leaves me very worried that the safety net, which has been introduced and has been quite successful under this Government, would be removed.
	I am very fond of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who is an outstanding character. We have had some entertaining times together in his constituency and he is welcome to come to mine any time he likes, but for him to accuse others of rewriting history and then declaim that the Conservatives supported the idea of a national health service is probably the most laughable commentary since Lieutenant-Commander Woodroffe's inebriated BBC broadcast from the royal naval review at Spithead in 1937.  [ Interruption. ] Which I thoroughly recommend.

Paul Murphy: Tell us what he said.

Lembit �pik: I am sure that YouTube will get a spike this evening.
	The idea that the national health service is safe in Conservative hands ignores the lessons of history and the thousands of beds that were lost under the previous Conservative Administration. I have had to work very hard with local communities over the past 13 years to protect what we have, and I just do not believe that it would be easy to do so under a regime that, presumably, would have some bearing on Conservative policy and, at least, distantly echo past Tory behaviour.

David Davies: I suspect that I would be quickly ruled out of order if I were to follow the line that I want to. The hon. Gentleman is fair-minded, and he and I have supported important road safety campaigns in Abergavenny in order to prevent people having to use NHS facilities, but surely he does not believe that prior to 1945 people were left to drop dead in the street. I do not believe that, not least because one of my grandparents was a doctor, and they made a point of ensuring that all those who needed health care got health care, whether they could afford it or not. It is a calumny on all those who served as doctors prior to 1945 to suggest otherwise.

Lembit �pik: There is a contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's comment. First, he implies that we do not need the NHS, and perhaps that is a more prescient observation of the Conservative party's true feelings towards the NHS than anything else that has been said. Secondly, and to answer his point directly, there was rudimentary provision for the general public before 1945, but the whole point of the NHS was that people who could not afford health care died sooner. Indeed, as a direct result of the NHS, life expectancy has measurably improved in this country.

David Davies: We have only to look at the hospitals in London to know that we have been building hospitals for people who could not afford health care since about the 14th century. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that.

Lembit �pik: We did not have an NHS in the 14th century. If we look not at the 14th century but at the early 20th century, we see a direct relationship between wealth and life expectancy. Sadly, there still is one to an extent, but the differential has been reduced.
	It is interesting that we are arguing about whether we should have an NHS or not. That, I am afraid, is the debate that we might have under a Conservative Government. I do not suggest that, realistically, the Tories would demolish the NHS, but there would be much greater dependence on the private sector, and the differentials would increase. There is no private hospital in Montgomeryshire, and most of my constituents could not afford to go to one. I am concerned that our difficulties with access on a cross-border basis to the Royal Shrewsbury hospital would increase if that change of Government took place.
	My other concerns relate to other issues, although I shall not go through every single one. Wind turbines are a big issue in my constituency. I am on the record as being sceptical about the benefits of having mass wind farms plastered all over my constituency, given that they produce a relatively miniscule amount of power in comparison with the disruption that they cause.
	There is a particular problem with the transportation of the thousands of lorry loads that go through my constituency. I have sought clarification in the past, but I still do not know whether there would be a change in policy if there were a change of Government. I would be very happy to praise the Conservatives, if they said that they supported my position-that is, that my constituency should not be modified into one giant wind farm.
	I happen to be pro-nuclear, although my party is not; I hope to persuade others in my party to take my position. I am sure that wind turbines on the scale that I am talking about will do more harm to my constituency than good for the environment.

David Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem with onshore wind farms is the Welsh Assembly's technical advice note 8, or TAN 8? That imposes a positive presumption in favour of wind farm development, and it is virtually impossible to challenge.

Lembit �pik: I have problems with TAN 8 as well. The first is the presumption that the hon. Gentleman has described. The second is the designation of specific areas, which necessarily masses wind farms in places such as mid-Wales. I hope that I will persuade others in the Chamber to take a new look at wind turbines, which generate the most expensive electricity that we produce. As I have said, I see nuclear power as an alternative. I certainly do not see turbines on the scale that I am talking about as doing anything other than harming the aspect of my community and causing disruption for up to seven years, while they are constructed-and for relatively little benefit.
	Incidentally, I applaud Plaid Cymru's elegant solution to the nuclear debate; as I understand it, the party is implacably opposed to nuclear power, except on Anglesey. I salute the tidiness of that position.
	What action should we take to resolve the issues in Montgomeryshire? It is a matter of hard graft. All Members know how demanding our case loads are as a direct result of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. However, I can report some good news, which I mentioned in an earlier intervention. Newtown was looking at 180 job losses as a result of Shop Direct's downsizing of its call centres. Following considerable work with Shop Direct, Joy Jones, the outstanding mayor of Newtown, and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has been very proactive, I am happy to report that Shop Direct has changed its position and postponed any closure until December. That gives us room to breathe. I hope that we can find a long-term solution with Shop Direct or with another company that takes over the business.
	The outcome is also a credit to Ministers. I came to the Wales Office in urgent need of support, and I am happy to say that the Secretary of State and Under-Secretary could not have been more helpful; I am really grateful for their support. I should also mention the Prime Minister, who expressed his support at Prime Minister's questions and took action behind the scenes. That was a cross-party success story and 180 people still have their jobs thanks, in part, to the Government's work.
	Similarly, I got support from Ministers in the case of Regal Fayre, a new company setting up in Montgomery that could produce up to 100 jobs in time. It was a collaborative effort, in which Finance Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government were very supportive. Lord Mandelson, the Secretary of State for everything, also supported us and made some direct interventions when we were having trouble with finance.
	Now let me say something that is slightly unfashionable: I found RBS very helpful on this occasion. It relaxed some of its conditions in order to make the loan that was required. That took months to arrange, but had RBS not come good in the end, we would not have these jobs. Not everything that the banks are doing is all bad. I am pleased to report that another small business facing closure was helped by HSBC personnel coming to a meeting-I was there as well-and renegotiating the debts of that business. There are some glimmers of hope and good examples of the banks responding to the political direction that has been requested by the Government.
	I have to make a point of a very parochial nature. Despite rumours to the contrary, Carpetright in Newtown is not closing, so could people please stop going in there looking for the closing down sale? The people there are perfectly happy, and it is probably a rumour spread by somebody else.
	On schools, I hope that we have a period of calm in Powys when we look at the issues on a more rational basis. The councillors ultimately have to make the decision, but it seems clear to me that no high school in north Powys should be closed. The bigger threat is to the sixth forms, and that is where the debate most usefully lies. I am pleased to see that local community groups, parents and teachers are leading the campaigns in each of the six high schools in my area, which is as it should be. The less politicised and the more rational this is, the better for all concerned.
	I am very concerned about mental health provision in Powys. We cost ourselves far more than we save by not having appropriate mental health provision in mid-Wales. I hope that over time Ministers can have conversations with their opposite numbers in Cardiff to see whether we can make a direct intervention and provide a much more acceptable level of service.
	Newtown is currently suffering gridlock, because the council improved the traffic management in the centre of the town. When it switched the lights on, it more or less switched the traffic off. An appreciable part of the work over the next few days will be trying to convince it to go back to where we were before with a roundabout instead of lights. Such issues are not glamorous, but they preoccupy MPs most of the time. I may have to call on Ministers once again if the council is intransigent and bloody-mindedly refuses to heed the obvious distress of a community that is unable to drive from one side of a small town to the other.
	The election will obviously be on 6 May, and we all look forward to a new Parliament and the new challenges that it will bring. For my part, I can only conclude with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), who turned to me earlier and said, Actually, this is a pretty wonderful job, isn't it? For all the difficulties, troubles and challenges, I still think that it is a noble profession. It is still an honour to serve here, working together with my local Assembly Member, the gentle giant, Mick Bates, and his soon-to-be-successor in 2011, Wyn Williams, the outstanding politician of his generation, who are up for the challenge. I am proud of my team in Newtown and proud of the constituency that I represent, and I hope to do even more if that is the will of the people of Montgomeryshire.

Nick Ainger: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who always aims to entertain, if not to inform us about Liberal Democrat policy. I am reminded of a story about the late Lord Howells. When he was the Member for Ceredigion, he announced at a public meeting that Liberal Democrat policy on water was that it should all be free. Afterwards he was challenged about this and told that it was not Liberal Democrat policy, and he said, No, but it should be. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman is following his policy in that regard.

Lembit �pik: With the exception of the fact that I always highlight party contradictions as I go along.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) referred to his first contribution to the Wales day debate back in 1988, which reminded me of my first such contribution in 1993. I am not sure whether it was on 1 March, but it was close to it. I could not make a very positive contribution, because of the situation that my constituency was in. The second recession under the Conservative Government had hit my constituency particularly hard. From 1981, Pembrokeshire basically stayed in recession. There was a second recession in the early 1990s, and by January 1993, the Pembroke and Tenby travel-to-work area, which is basically the south Pembrokeshire part of my constituency under its current name, had the worst unemployment not only of any part of Wales but of any part of the UK. More than 2,600 people there were claiming unemployment benefit.
	I think back to those days, when I looked for help for my people in my constituency who were facing repossession and those who had lost their jobs, and help was there none. The Government did not change the rules on support for mortgage interest payments, as the current Government have-the waiting period was 39 weeks then, and now it is 13 weeks. That has been a major contribution to keeping people in their homes. There was no future jobs fund and no new deal then, and so no real help for the unemployed. It was a tragic period for many individuals who lost not only their job but their home.
	The difference between that home-grown recession and the global recession that we have faced over the past 18 months is that Government reactions have been a world apart. I am absolutely confident that the measures that have been taken, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State listed-the car scrappage scheme, the tax deferral, the future jobs fund, help for people to stay in their homes and so on-have had a significant impact on reducing the effect of the recession. As others have said, even after this deep recession, unemployment levels are still a lot better than they were back in the 1990s.
	The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) said that we always get such arguments in these debates and in the Welsh Grand Committee, but it is worth remembering that the policy decisions in the two circumstances were completely different. They were taken by two different Governments and, as I have said, the way that Government decisions have helped people in the current experience is worlds away from what happened in the early 1990s.
	I do not recognise the description of some parts of Wales that certain Opposition Members have given when talking about their constituencies. As I have travelled around Wales, as an individual Member and formerly as a Minister, I have seen the investment that has taken place on an unprecedented scale. I can give examples of services that have been provided in my constituency and elsewhere. There is the new Tenby college hospital, the £8 million refurbishment of the Pembroke Dock hospital, the new A and E at West Wales general hospital, the brand-new £30 million-plus Carmarthen high school, the upgrading of primary schools and the building of new ones in Jeffreyston, in Pembroke Dock and throughout the area. There has been huge investment in Pembrokeshire college, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. New schools are being built; there is a new A and E unit and other development at Withybush general hospital; and a brand new leisure centre recently opened in Haverfordwest. That is my experience of west Wales.
	The hon. Gentleman complains about the need to upgrade the A40, but as I speak, a completely new section is being upgraded. Admittedly, it is not a dual carriageway, but unfortunately, the traffic flows do not require one. I would have loved to see a dual carriageway there, but I am a pragmatist. We get what we can afford, and unfortunately, we do not have the resources to dual that section of the A40.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend will be aware that the port of Holyhead is now linked via the A55 all the way to Chester, but for a period in the 1980s, it stopped on the Anglesey side of the bridge-it was not completed by the Conservatives owing to a lack of money. It took a new Government to deal with that, albeit under the private finance initiative, which I was uncomfortable with, but we now have a completed A55. It is therefore a little rich for Conservatives to say that they are all for linking ports by dualling roads, when they had 18 years to do so but failed.

Nick Ainger: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes his point very well.
	We can be incredibly proud of what we have achieved in the past 12 years or so. We have seen real improvements in the quality of the services that are provided to our constituents, including in health and education, and we have been able to encourage employment. That we have maintained relatively low interest rates has been a huge assistance to small businesses. Back in the 1990s, interest rates were 15 per cent., and mortgage rates were even higher, which had a huge impact on our constituents' quality of life and the viability of businesses. There has been a big change, and we ought to be honest with ourselves about that.
	The deficit that we face is clearly a major issue. As a member of the Treasury Committee, I have heard of the effects and causes of the global recession in individual economies in the United States-which the Committee visited a couple of weeks ago-Frankfurt, Austria and Hungary. There was a common theme. Countries throughout the world recognise, thank goodness, that at the time of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, there was co-ordinated action, which was led, I must say, by our own Prime Minister. The major part he played in forming a consensus and driving through the necessary action is acknowledged around the world. The good news is that the world responded in a co-ordinated way, and that we did not enter a serious depression, which we easily could have done. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, banks could have closed, and people might not have been able to withdraw their deposits, or get cash from cash machines. That was the reality we faced in autumn 2008, but co-ordinated global action prevented those things from happening.
	There are two reasons for that, the first of which I have raised before in the House. Because of the crisis that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers, it is not recognised to the extent it should be that from late 2007 to mid-2008-less than a year-we had the biggest spike in energy prices the world has ever seen. Oil went from around $70 a barrel to nearly $150 a barrel, which was unprecedented. That had a serious impact, as did the rises in commodity prices for food, other forms of energy and materials such as metals. Following that serious global problem, and building on it, came the credit crunch and the global banking crisis. We must tackle that issue. We must try to prevent the commodity exchanges getting out of control as they did. There is something wrong when the Governor of the Bank of England writes to the Chancellor to inform him that the consumer prices index has risen to 3.5 per cent. and one of the three reasons he gives is that oil prices went up by 70 per cent. in 2009-during the deepest recession that we have seen. Energy prices should have been falling as demand was falling. Oil prices should have been falling or at least not reached their current level.
	We need to tackle this problem globally and have complete transparency on the commodity exchanges so that we do not have the speculative activity that has caused that particular problem. The good news is that the US and other countries consider this to be a major issue and the IMF is also looking at it. It will take co-ordinated global action.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) mentioned the RBS bonuses, and said that only those earning less than £39,000 would receive a bonus-

Cheryl Gillan: According to the Lobby briefing.

Nick Ainger: Well, the Lobby briefing was wrong then. Those earning less than £39,000 will receive their bonus in cash. Those earning more will receive their substantial bonuses in the form of shares paid over three years, but if their performance over that time is deemed to have fallen off, the bonus will be clawed back. The overall performance of the institution will also be taken into account.
	Those arrangements are in line with the G20 recommendations. However, the bonus culture has to change. There is a massive disconnect between the financial services industry and the rest of the real economy. People stand aghast when institutions that have caused them personally to lose their jobs, see their businesses close and, in certain circumstances, lose their homes, still have a culture of so-called performance-related pay, with massive bonuses, the like of which is not replicated in any other industry. If someone is paid £250,000 or £500,000 and their wages are doubled, tripled or even quadrupled, I cannot see how they can work any harder. There are only 24 hours in a day and seven days in a week. I cannot see how these huge alleged incentives can actually act as any incentive at all.

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman refers to the real economy to distinguish it from the banking and financial sector. But is it not the case that the banking sector has mushroomed exponentially under the Labour Government, whereas what he would presumably call the real economy-manufacturing industry-has declined in Wales by a third?

Nick Ainger: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should take the axe to the financial services sector. I am sure that his friend Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, would take serious exception to that. To be fair, we have seen a significant expansion of financial services in Wales, and Admiral is a very good example of that. I am arguing not that the financial services sector should be cut, but that we need to rebuild the real economy.
	The International Monetary Fund is absolutely right to say that countries should not cut spending until the recovery is well in place, but my understanding, from the shadow Chancellor's speech last night, of Conservative policy this week-I am not sure what it will be next week, because it seems to change regularly-is that he still wants to cut spending as soon as possible to address the deficit, if, God forbid, a Conservative Government are elected in May. However, the IMF is clear in saying that countries around the world should be very careful about the timing of spending reductions. The recovery is very fragile, not only in this country, but in the United States and throughout the eurozone, where the growth rate is now 0.1 per cent.-the same as ours. It would be incredibly foolish and naïve to start a programme of cutting back expenditure. The fear, rightly expressed by the IMF, is that the world could be plunged back into recession-and of all that that means.
	A high proportion-about 36 per cent.-of those constituents of mine who are unemployed have a background in the construction industry, which is a far higher proportion than for virtually any other area in Wales, and possibly the UK. This Monday, there was a demonstration outside the Pembroke power station site demanding a high proportion of British jobs for British workers and so on. It was believed that a high proportion of the 500 people currently building the new power station were not UK residents. In fact, the information provided by the main contractor indicates that more than 90 per cent. of the work force are from the UK, with 40 per cent. from Pembrokeshire and nearly 60 per cent.-57 per cent., I think-from Wales.
	There is an issue though. As a result of the winding down of two major liquefied natural gas site projects, a high proportion of people are seeking work on that site. I think that we can see a real improvement in how people are notified of vacancies, and that the recruitment system can be radically improved. I hope, therefore, that the contractors, including the main contractors, together with the main client, RWE, are considering that issue, so that many of the opportunities presented as the site develops can go to local people with the right skills and experience, which have developed in Pembrokeshire over its many years of dealing with the petrochemical industry.
	I want to make a general point about the engineering and construction industry. I declare an interest: I am a member of Unite and my constituency receives support from the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. We have a huge opportunity, particularly in Wales, but throughout the UK as well, in the engineering and construction industry, with the decarbonisation of power generation over the next 10 or 20 years. People are talking about £20 billion-at least-in investment in new gas-fired power stations; in new coal-fired stations with carbon capture and storage; in nuclear power, such as that produced at Wylfa; in a massive increase in offshore wind and tidal energy; and even in the Severn barrage, if that comes off. There are massive opportunities that the engineering and construction industry should be able to benefit from and which should increase our work force.
	Those opportunities are as great as when North sea oil was being developed in the 1970s, so we need to maximise the number of UK companies that win those contracts and employ UK labour. The alternative is what happened at the Lindsey oil refinery at the Staythorpe power station, where UK contractors were unsuccessful in certain parts of the contract, and labour from Spain and elsewhere was brought in to carry out part of it.
	The Gibson report, which was published in December, highlights what needs to be addressed. The recommendations are quite clear. One of the issues is that we have an ageing work force in the engineering and construction industry, with 65 per cent. of the work force being over 40, and 41 per cent. being over 50. We need to bring young people into the industry. One of the recommendations of the Gibson report is that we should double the number of on-site apprentices, from 500 to 1,000, by 2011. There are also clear problems with productivity and, in particular, the supervision and management of contracts, and clear recommendations are made about that.
	However, I want to emphasise again how we come out of the recession and how we can build and develop on the basis that exists now, and move into sustainable recovery. Part of that will involve decarbonisation of power generation. There are huge investments to be made, and Wales can benefit hugely from those. RWE is the main developer for the massive wind farm on the Bristol channel. We have seen Wylfa being replaced, as well as the gas-fired power station in my constituency, and there is a new power station in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden). There is a range of opportunities for various forms of tidal power. That is the way to grow out of the recession; that is the way to recovery. I fear that the alternative posed by the Conservatives could see my constituency returning to the position that it was in during the early 1990s.

Mark Williams: Given the time and the fact that a neighbouring hon. Member and friend, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), wants to speak, I will be very quick.
	I want to raise three or four issues relating to Ceredigion, all of which are economic in nature. The first is funding for higher education and research in Wales. I am concerned that the suggested restructuring of IBERS at Aberystwyth university raises the prospect of up to 70 job losses. That is a blow not only to those individuals and the economy of north Ceredigion, but to the Welsh research base. Given the circumstances-a shortfall of £2.4 million and a changed emphasis in research funding priorities-I should say from the outset that I understand the rationale behind the university's strategy, but that does not mitigate the blow that north Ceredigion will face. This has been an ongoing saga, affecting the funding of the plant breeding station, of which my noble Friend Lord Elystan-Morgan reminded me, the funding of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research and now the funding of IBERS.
	In the wake of the emergence of IBERS-the merger of IGER with Aberystwyth university, with significant funding from the Welsh Assembly Government, which has been greatly welcomed-we faced early concerns about the high expectations of the university's capacity to compete in the global environment. I am sure that the university has the potential, the hope and the experience to compete from a global perspective, but there are great concerns among the work force. IBERS has chosen to focus its core research on the necessary areas of climate change, biofuels and food security-a narrowing of its research. They are major issues now and they will be major issues in the foreseeable future, but my concern is that we will lose the broad research base and that the new focus could be too prescriptive. I have no doubt that the expertise at IBERS will ensure that it remains competitive in the global market, but I worry that the agenda of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, in pursuing a narrow set of objectives for universities, will expose further education and research to many commercial pressures.
	There is also a broader picture, involving the relationship with the UK funding councils in their provision of research funds. The university of Aberystwyth has always had a good relationship with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. However, Wales receives only about 3 per cent. of the £2.8 billion that is distributed by the UK research councils. Applications should obviously be assessed on merit but, given that Wales accounts for 5 per cent. of the UK population, it is reasonable to ask why Welsh higher education institutions underperform in terms of research funding. That point was raised by the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, and I believe that it needs to be highlighted again.
	IBERS offers outstanding value, not only to my constituency but to Wales as a whole. It provides a core base of 300 skilled jobs. We used to be an objective 1 area, and we need those skilled jobs. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me what representations he has made, and what plans he can outline for the institute's future. I understand the university's strategy and its need to focus its research on the new environmental agenda, but we must none the less take a broader perspective on the research base.
	The Secretary of State mentioned the delegation of businesses from Cardigan that came with me to see him yesterday. Those business people had three fundamental concerns. A survey in the  Daily Mail a year ago looked at the balance between public sector jobs and small enterprises across the UK as a whole. Surprisingly, given that it is a large rural constituency, Ceredigion was in the top 10, with 40 per cent. of our jobs coming from the public sector. There are great pressures relating to education at the moment, as I have said. We rely on our county council and the national health service for jobs. We also have a huge reliance on small businesses.
	The business people of Cardigan were concerned, first, about the potential impact of the increase in business rates, despite the remedial action that has been taken by the Assembly Government. It is clear that large areas of Wales are suffering as a result of the revaluation process, including Aberystwyth and Cardigan, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) could highlight areas of his constituency that are suffering as well.
	Our meeting with the Secretary of State was very positive, and, to his credit, he agreed to take up these concerns with the First Minister. Some of the figures involved are quite staggering, with businesses facing increases in their business rates of between 25 and 40 per cent., sometimes equating to about £7,000 a year. The highest reported increase in Cardigan was £12,000 a year. In a small town whose economy is reliant on small businesses, such figures can make the difference between having staff in a business and losing it completely. I wish the Secretary of State well in his deliberations with the First Minister. We need this point to be made, because the general feeling is that many businesses that face very high business rates are being ignored.
	Those attending the meeting yesterday also made the point about the lack of a threshold on corporation tax. For a business that is just starting to be profitable, that is a kick in the teeth, and it makes the growth of a small business harder to achieve. The Secretary of State promised to raise that issue with the Chancellor, and I look forward to hearing the response that he gets.
	We have heard a lot about the banks. At yesterday's meeting, we heard stories of solvent businesses with good prospects wanting to expand, but having to turn down loan offers because the interest rates being offered were as high as 10 per cent. That is wrong, and it is bad for the economy. People do not understand the mismatch between state ownership of a bank and the way in which they are being treated on the high street. We are experiencing particular difficulties in securing mortgages on affordable section 106 properties, which is undermining attempts to expand affordable housing. I had a young couple in my constituency surgery last week. They had been promised a deal by one of the high street banks, but the terms of the deal have changed and they will now lose the property because they have no access to the 20 per cent. deposit that the bank is demanding of them. They had been saving for the past seven years to realise a deposit, but that property is now beyond their means because the bank has changed its tune.
	The third issue that the small businesses raised was broadband provision. How many of my small businesses can function without it? This is not an issue about broadband speeds; the problem is one of no broadband provision at all. Of course we welcome the Government's commitment to the universal service obligation but, as this week's Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report identified, we do not yet have a mechanism to deliver broadband across Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Briefly, I want to talk about the legacy of the post office closure programme. I recently hosted a reception by Consumer Focus Wales, which has drawn up a report on the matter. To be fair, hon. Members from all parties attended the reception to listen to its concerns. Many of us remain implacably opposed to the post office closures that took place, and we all share a desire to see the remaining network thrive. However, the report found that the most disadvantaged communities in Wales have lost out, and that those closures have broken many community ties: elderly people, consumers with disabilities, those with long-term sickness, those on low incomes and those who rely on public transport have found it more difficult to access services. Many of my constituents have had that experience. Outreach services have had teething problems, and the Government still have a job to convince us that they are not just a staging post to future closures. Hours of operation do not match up with public transport services and they make it difficult for many to access the post office, or post office van, and there have even been incidents of vans not being able to find a place to park.
	I welcome the Government's decision to consult on additional funding streams for post offices, particularly the creation of a Post Office bank, which I support. The Minister will surely understand the cynicism of many who feel that the move should have been made before closure, not after. There was a huge mismatch at the time of the network change programme. On the one hand, there was the spectacle of closures, and on the other, there was the National Assembly sensibly and wisely creating the post office diversification fund, for which I pay tribute to it. People could not understand why those things were not working in sync. I wish only that the UK Government had taken the lead of the National Assembly on that.
	My final point is a parochial but important one for my constituents. We had assurances that the Driving Standards Agency would continue to look for a suitable site for motorcycle testing facilities in west Wales, so that my constituents would not have the choice of travelling to Swansea or Shrewsbury. We had meetings with the chief executive and the Minister with responsibility for road safety, I initiated a debate in Westminster Hall, and an assurance was received that the DSA would continue to look for a site in mid-Wales. A letter from the DSA last week says that it is now giving up on that attempt. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Department for Transport and the DSA, preferably before my meeting with its chief executive in the week after next, to see what can be done? We need such a facility.
	In many ways, that epitomises how many of us feel in west Wales-that we are still on the periphery, still left out, and still forgotten. I will not be completely pessimistic; there has been good news. There has been more money in schools in Ceredigion, and there are encouraging signs about investment in the national health service. However, there is still a lot to do. If our National Assembly is to mean anything, particularly when we hand over powers-I hope that we have our referendum next autumn-it must be for the whole of Wales, not just the M4 corridor.

Albert Owen: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams). I am grateful for his work in support of my private Member's Bill, the Grocery Market Ombudsman Bill, which will be before the House next week. I will shorten my remarks, as I look forward to listening to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it will probably be his last chance to speak in a Welsh affairs debate. I pay tribute to him and other hon. Members who are voluntarily stepping down. He and I were elected on the same day, and we agree on many things, particularly social policies. We do not agree on the constitutional issues, which I will let him develop in his speech. I wish him well in his new chosen career.
	I also want to pay tribute to our armed forces in Wales, especially those on active service overseas in Afghanistan. I pay special tribute to the Royal Air Force and the excellent job it does. Many of its members have been trained in my constituency, in RAF Valley on Ynys Môn, which is now a centre of excellence and has seen a lot of investment for the future, for fast-jet trainers, pilots and search and rescue.
	I was going to be very positive about the future, but I must take issue with a comment made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about Anglesey Aluminium. She perpetuates the myth that too little too late was done to help that company-the opposite was the case. The company was given a great deal of help for about 10 years. In the late 1990s, a moratorium on gas was lifted to help it to develop a project enabling it to have its own source of energy, but it chose not to pursue that avenue. It then looked to the main grid for its electricity supply, but the market was high following a spike in prices-as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) pointed out-and that put it off.
	The company then considered using biomass to bridge the gap. Assistance amounting to some £48 million was due to it. Having talked to senior Conservatives, I know that they were not prepared to match public investment to help the company. It is disingenuous of the hon. Lady, on behalf of her party, to suggest that too little was done too late, given that the Conservatives' policy was not to intervene to assist the company.

Cheryl Gillan: Given that the £48 million was forthcoming from the hon. Gentleman's party and his party is still in government, may I ask whether it is still going into Anglesey's economy?

Albert Owen: That is a very churlish remark. It shows that the hon. Lady does not appreciate the amount of effort that was put into helping the main employer, which had been there for some 30 years and had put some £14 million per annum into the economy. It was the company's decision, on commercial grounds, to pull out. I am certain that the next Labour Government will put a great deal of money into Anglesey, as have Labour Governments over the past 13 years. If the company had taken up the offer, it could have continued to produce quality aluminium smelting for the future, but it chose not to do so.
	I want to say something about the green economy and green tourism. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire talked about decarbonisation, and I think that Wales has an excellent opportunity to pioneer the process. That would bring quality jobs to Wales, and to my constituency in particular.
	We have a fantastic asset in Wales which we must promote to attract tourism, which is a very important industry. Some £215 million has gone into the local economy of Ynys Môn from tourism alone. That equates to the employment of about 4,000 full-time equivalent workers to develop what I think is a very good product. Last year was a difficult year for the economy throughout Wales and especially in my constituency, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should applaud the resilience shown by the tourism industry. It had a difficult time, but it took advantage of the rate of the pound against the euro to promote Wales, including Anglesey.
	Last March I held an Anglesey day in the House of Commons, which was a showcase for Ynys Môn. I think it important for us to highlight the positive assets of our constituencies. I am not merely being parochial. Anglesey is the gateway to Snowdonia, and many great activities take place there. We have scenic beauty in north Wales, and a proud history, culture and heritage. We have a unique brand in Wales, and I think that we should sell it around the world. We should all work together to promote the great outdoors. There is a vibrant market not just for overseas visitors, but for visitors from the home nations and the regions of the United Kingdom.
	The trend is in favour of the short stay rather than the long holiday, and we must improve our infrastructure accordingly to ensure that people can travel. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) is right: we need to enable people to reach the coasts and the beauty spots of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I was going to go into greater detail, but I am conscious of the time. I could speak for hours about the beauty of Wales and about Ynys Môn, the mother of Wales. I think that everyone who visits Wales should visit the mother of Wales while they are there.
	Green energy has fantastic potential for the future. The low-carbon future will be good for the economy, the environment, and the energy security of our country. As other hon. Members have said, over previous decades we have been too reliant on the dash for gas, and we have not invested as much as we should have in other areas. That is changing, however. Since entering the House, I have been involved in the scrutiny of a number of energy Bills, and we have put in place mechanisms for growing both renewable and nuclear energy in the future. I believe in a rich, diverse energy mix that includes renewable energy, nuclear energy and clean coal, as well as energy efficiency measures.
	I think Wales can take advantage of an opportunity here. I have been promoting Anglesey as Britain's energy island, because we now have a great tradition of nuclear generation, and we have also had windmills. I feel sad when I hear hon. Members talking in terms of either/or. I think we need both types of energy. Anglesey has been a pioneer in nuclear, and it also houses wind farms on land. I also think there is great potential for a round three, in which Anglesey has responsibility for the manufacture, assembly and maintenance of the new area proposed by Centrica between the Isle of Man and the Isle of Anglesey. That is important. I do not consider wind turbines to be bird blenders, as the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said. I think they are important; the technology exists, and it is also improving-I disagree with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) about that-and I believe we can get a better return on our money from wind farms. We in Wales should be pioneering on that.
	I have been talking to a number of companies that want to invest in Ynys Môn and develop wind farm technology. I have also been talking to companies that want to develop marine and tidal energy. I think we can bring this all together, and have a low-carbon economy with Wales driving it forward, because that will provide the skills for the future; it will provide high-skill jobs not only in construction and generation, but in research and development. Green technology can bring that to Wales, and I want Anglesey to be central to that.
	I do not want to talk Wales down; I want to talk Wales up. It has a skills base; it has pioneered in many areas in the past, and it can pioneer in the future. I think that green energy and green tourism are two areas in which Wales can take the lead, and I want Anglesey to be central to that in the future. We need to invest a little more in that, and I hope that the Assembly and local government, as well as this House, can look at the green technologies and green economy and make them central.
	Finally, I want to pay tribute to the Isle of Anglesey county council for its help and support in promoting the energy island concept, because I think that will bring real benefits to Anglesey in the future. I now look forward to hearing, perhaps, from the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr.

Adam Price: I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for his very kind remarks, and I wish him well personally-although I hope he will not put that in his election address. This might be one of the briefest valedictory speeches in history, but I have felt compelled to respond to some of the kind words Members have said about me and about other Members who are retiring from the House; I almost felt as if I was participating in a living funeral at one point.
	I particularly want to pay tribute, in return, to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). We have crossed metaphorical swords at times, and listening to him reminds me of a famous remark once made about Saunders Lewis: that even though it was possible at times to disagree with every word that he said, somehow it was a pleasure disagreeing with him. Such is the courtesy and generosity of spirit that has always marked the right hon. Gentleman's contributions, and his personal dealings with me and my hon. Friends.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred, characteristically mischievously, to the small add-ons my party managed to insert into the One Wales agreement. I have one of them in my hand. The Secretary of State referred to it in his remarks. It is the letter responding to the First Minister on the referendum, in which the Secretary of State says:
	I have instructed Wales Office officials to take forward the preparatory work on the legal instruments required for holding the referendum.
	My party says Hear, hear to that.
	The right hon. Member for Islwyn referred to the economic problems facing Iceland and Ireland. I am sure that he would accept-some of my forebears came from Cork, and the same is true of the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)-that the Irish are a resilient people and one should never underestimate them. I am sure that despite their current difficulties, they will bounce back. That is part of a core truth about small countries everywhere, irrespective of whether they are independent: small countries have to be resilient, and sometimes they have to be agile too. Wales has also had its fair share of difficult times, but we should have resources of hope, as one Welshman from Gwent famously said. That is because through, those difficult times, we can retain our optimism that the future will be better than the past, as Idris Davies said.
	One can turn around the argument about whether Wales is too poor to be independent. I could say, as indeed the former permanent secretary at the Welsh Assembly Government recently said, that perhaps Wales is too poor because it has been run from outside. My view is that no country has ever ruled another well-that is my philosophical position. I respect the sincerity of the right hon. Member for Islwyn, and all I would say to him is that this interesting debate will continue for many years to come.
	In the meantime, this debate has touched upon the central problem of Welsh politics: the relative economic underdevelopment of Wales, which spans generations. One can trace this back to the 1920s and the collapse of the coal price; it has been with us that long. All hon. Members from all parties have to find a resolution to that problem. Of course, it was not always thus. Wales was once the engine room of the world economy. At one point, two thirds of the tonnage of all UK exports left from one Welsh port-Cardiff. So we have had better times and there will be better times in our future too. Where was the first £1 million cheque signed? It was signed in Cardiff. Wales has been more prosperous in the past and it will find a more prosperous future.
	A number of Members have put their finger on the nub of this matter by saying that at this critical time there are opportunities. Part of the reason for the relative underdevelopment in Wales is that the UK economy, from the early years of the 20th century, has started to specialise away from manufacturing and into financial services. That is the core of the problem that the UK economy is facing, and we hope that we are seeing that economy being restored to a more healthy balance. Wales is well poised because manufacturing is still a more important part of its economy than it is in the rest of the UK's economy.
	So Wales needs to grasp these important opportunities, because the economic statistics at the moment are depressing. Wales is the UK region with the lowest gross value-added per head; it is 10th out of 12 on research and development expenditure; and it is the lowest on private equity and venture capital. Before the shadow Secretary of State claims that that is all the fault of the Welsh Assembly Government or even this Westminster Government, I should say that Wales has lain in that position for generations; this is a deep structural problem in the Welsh and the UK economy. However, that does not mean that we should accept it.
	Wales is a small country that needs a big idea. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), my neighbour, has put his finger on it by saying that need to put manufacturing, science, technology and innovation at the heart of our economic future. I wish to see, in the UK in general and in Wales in particular, a decade in which we do that; we should have a decade for innovation, manufacturing and science to build the foundation for the 21st century. At the culmination of that decade, I would like the World Expo-the world fair-to come back to the UK for the first time in about 150 years. It started in this country in 1851 and has been going ever since, but it has not been back to the UK since 1862. Does the fact that we have not invited back the World Expo- the biggest international event after the Olympic games and the FIFA World cup-not say something about priorities?
	The World Expo came to Dublin in 1907, when Ireland was still in the UK. Why not bring it to Wales? Why not have the Wales World Expo? Wales, which fired the industrial revolution, could host the biggest and most important world event for the new industrial revolution-the knowledge revolution that was referred to by the right hon. Member for Islwyn. Yes, it will require investment, just as the London Olympics have required investment. As we know, Wales has contributed heavily to that, paying about £436 million. Surely, just as the UK Government have supported the successful Olympic bid and the FIFA World cup bid, which would also be mostly based in London, they could support with central Government expenditure a bid for the Expo made on behalf of the whole UK, but based in Wales.
	The Expo could have a transformational effect. The last two-in Hanover in Germany in 2000 and in Japan in 2005-had 25 million visitors. Imagine the transformative effect that the event could have on the image and the reality of Wales. It would be a catalyst that would transform our economic prospects and would put Wales on the world map, as it was so clearly 100 years ago.
	The bidding round will start soon-it will open next year. Here is a challenge to the Front Benchers from both leading parties: will they back a Wales bid for the World Expo? I am speaking as an ordinary Back-Bench Member of Plaid Cymru, so this is also a challenge to my own party. If I were here after the next elections, in any discussions with either of the two Front-Bench teams, I would seek to make the proposal one of our red lines. Wales deserves this. Generations of my family and those of most other hon. Members in the Chamber contributed with their sweat and too often with their blood to making this state of the United Kingdom the great world economic power that it was. We are not asking for charity but for something that I think that we deserve. We are asking for help so that we can help ourselves. We are asking for a foundation for a new economy.
	Whatever our political position on the constitutional question, none of us want Wales to be holding a begging bowl for the rest of this century. We do not want to go cap in hand to anyone, however we see Wales's political future. We want Wales to be able to stand up proud and tall. We have the human capital to do it-the most precious resource that we have is the skills and ability of our people-but we need investment. Let us have that investment in a decade of manufacturing and science. Let us not inspire engineers to go into the City of London, as they have for the past 20 years, to use their mathematics to sell more and more arcane financial products. Let us inspire engineers-Welsh sons and daughters-to do engineering when they come out of university by showing that there can be a productive future for them in manufacturing.
	I am optimistic, too-we have to be, do we not, in a small country? As I shall be leaving these shores soon, I want to end by paraphrasing the famous phrase used by the late Robert Kennedy. Some people look at Wales and the world as they are and ask, Why? The challenge is to look at Wales and the world as they could be and ask, Why not?

David Jones: The St. David's day debate this year has been something of a bittersweet occasion: sweet because it is always sweet to celebrate Wales in this Palace of Westminster, but tinged with bitterness, perhaps, at the departure of so many colleagues from both sides of the Chamber.
	The debate was also characterised by a trait that, I am afraid, is frequently Welsh-that of looking back. That could certainly be seen from those Members on the Government Benches who, again, after 13 years, sought to analyse what happened under the last Conservative Government. However, in some six weeks' time, the electorate of this country will be called not to go back over ancient history but to take, as the Prime Minister said, a second look-or perhaps a long hard look-at the record of this Labour Government in office.
	The Secretary of State was his usual combative self, suggesting what a terrible state of affairs the country would fall into if the wicked Tories were ever to take over the levers of power, but frankly that does not wash any more. Labour has been in charge of the country for 13 years now, and we need to consider what has happened under that party.
	Let me consider the speeches that various hon. and right hon. Members have made, starting with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). May I echo the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) paid to him? His work as the Secretary of State for Wales was outstanding. His greatest achievement-in his second tenure of office-was to restore the prominence of the Welsh Grand Committee, which is an important institution of the House and is vital for the venting of Wales's voice in Parliament. It is frequently forgotten, since the establishment of the National Assembly, that a large proportion of day-to-day life in Wales is directly affected by what happens here. It is therefore essential that Welsh Members of Parliament have the opportunity to debate relevant issues here. He ensured that the Welsh Grand Committee met regularly, and I hope that his successor continues the pattern that he established.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the banks, as have many other hon. and right hon. Members. Clearly, the banking system and the crisis within it has been a cause of much of the pain that the country has experienced in the past two or three years. It is undoubtedly the case that immense greed was allowed to impel those who worked in the banks, but, by the same token, it cannot be overlooked that the regulatory system that was established by the Government was defective.

Nick Ainger: rose-

David Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, but I have very little time.
	The tripartite system that was established directly by the Prime Minister proved wanting. Indeed, the Governor of the Bank of England commented that although the Northern Rock fiasco could not have been averted, it certainly could have been mitigated if the Bank of England had had direct and overarching responsibility for regulation. That is something that the next Conservative Government will introduce.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is doing the Governor a disservice. The Treasury Committee looked at these matters in great detail, and we found that there were major problems with regulation not only in this country but in every other developed country, despite the model being used.

David Jones: The fact of the matter is that in this country we had a tripartite system that did not work. There was no individual or body with overarching responsibility.  [ Interruption. ] France, of course, was not immune from what happened. The recession has hit this country harder than any other developed country. We were the first into the recession; we are the last out of it; and our exit is a faltering one. Indeed, it may well be-God forbid-that we are about to have a double dip. We might see statistics in April that show that we have re-entered recession, such is the fragility of the economy. The Government cannot abdicate responsibility for that, as they seek to do.
	The right hon. Member for Torfaen also discussed transport. He pointed out that it now takes him one hour longer than it did 20 years ago to drive from his constituency to London. I agree entirely that there should be far more co-ordination between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department for Transport on the development of transport policy. It is worth repeating what I have said before-it is ludicrous that the Welsh road freight transport policy takes no account of the DFT in London and that the DFT was not consulted about that policy given that most road freight journeys start or end in England.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who commented, perhaps otiosely, that it was clear from the comments of various Members that there is an election in the offing. I think that that is very clear from most of the speeches that we have heard. He also referred to rural issues. He, of course, represents a rural constituency, and he spoke about the price of fuel there. I am sure that he shares my concern that so many petrol stations in Wales are about to be adversely affected by the enormous hike in rates. If he were present, he would be interested to hear that 27 rural filling stations in Powys will be in danger if the rates increases go ahead without any mitigation. I urge the Welsh Assembly Government to look at that issue.
	The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) bemoaned her lack of a daffodil. I share her pain, but she will be pleased to note that I am wearing my special St. David's day tie. It has a pattern of leeks on a suitably blue background, and I hope that the number of leeks will be echoed by the number of Conservative Members of Parliament elected at the next general election.
	The right hon. Lady rightly spoke of the need for compassion towards the unemployed, but it is also true that Wales is more seriously affected by economic inactivity than any other part of the country. In Wales, more than 24 per cent. of the working age population is economically inactive. That is no good for the economy but, more particularly, it is no good for the people involved. I promise her that the next Conservative Government will introduce measures to do everything possible to put those people back to work. People cannot simply be written off all sorts of work just because they have one, particular medical condition. A truly caring and compassionate Government would look at each individual, assess what they can do and help them to find the work that suits them. I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees with that.
	Among other things, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) spoke about the recession's impact on young people. They are suffering doubly: they are finding it difficult to get work but, as my hon. Friend so rightly said, they are the ones who will pick up the bill for this recession-and probably their children will have to do so, too, such is the scale of the economic devastation that this country has experienced. Those young people must be intensely depressed by the fact that, having completed their education or training, they cannot find work. Above all else, we must ensure that they are given the opportunity as soon as possible to find the apprenticeships, or at least the work experience placements, that will equip them for the rest of their lives.
	We heard from the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) who, much to my personal distress, will be standing down at the next general election. He was again combative, berating the Conservative party for the way in which he claimed that it let down Wales in the 1980s and 1990s. However, may I remind him that the Government of whom he was a member inherited the best and most propitious economic legacy that any Government have ever inherited? What have the Government done with that legacy? They have frittered it away, and reduced this country to a basket case. The right hon. Member for Islwyn must face facts: I know that he is a fair-minded man, and I am sure that he will be as distressed as me at the parlous mess that this country now finds itself in.
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) spoke about the war in Afghanistan. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) paid tribute to the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the sterling service that they are undertaking out there, and I echo her words. I paid a visit to them at Dale barracks, Chester, before they were deployed, and I can tell the House that they were very eager to go there and do their duty. They were looking forward to it not with relish, but with the professionalism that marks out the Welsh military. I do not believe that it would be safe to pull out of Afghanistan immediately, as the hon. Gentleman suggested; I believe that we have a real and proper function to carry out there, and I am glad to see that Welsh servicemen are doing that job. I am sure that we all wish them safety in that important function.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), who raised a constituency issue that she has raised on many previous occasions. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who rightly pointed out the one-sided view of history with which we were regaled by Labour Members. He also raised the issue of apprenticeships, which are absolutely vital. We have a dearth of them, and it must be a priority of the next Conservative Government to find apprenticeships.
	The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, was next to speak, and I pay tribute to him for his chairmanship, which has been absolutely outstanding. I also pay tribute to my fellow Committee members for all the hard work that we have carried out. That may sound as if I am patting myself on the back, but after some 43 inquiries and innumerable LCOs, I think that I am entitled to do so.
	I must pay tribute to the Committee for the speed with which it has dealt with LCO applications. In passing, however, I have to say that over the past couple of years I have been dismayed by the attempts of certain individuals, particularly the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly, to suggest that the Committee has tried to slow down the progress of LCOs. We have carried out our functions as expeditiously as possible, and we could not have done any better.
	We then had an entertaining contribution from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who clearly thinks that the Conservative party is in power, because he devoted most of his contribution to berating it. Indeed, one might even think that he was concerned about a Conservative challenge in his constituency. However, he made one point with which I agree: the planning framework is resulting in the proliferation of wind farms in parts of rural Wales. The TAN 8 policy document is an absolutely pernicious piece of work that needs urgent revision.
	We then heard from the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), who spoke from a position of authority as a member of the Treasury Committee. He, like many Members, referred to the bank bonus culture. We must face the fact that bonuses have been part of the culture and remunerative package of bankers over the years. The issue must be looked at, but it is quite wrong to berate moderately paid bank employees for the fact that they are awarded bonuses.
	I am conscious of the time-although I would like to refer to other Members' contributions, I do not have the time to do so. On St. David's day it is clear that all Members, whatever their political background, want to do their best for Wales, but we cannot all come to the same conclusions. In the next few weeks, the people of Wales, like the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, will have to make a choice between five more years under Labour, repeating the failure that Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom has experienced, or a new optimism with a Conservative party that is prepared to take on the challenges that this country faces, and to make life better for the people of Wales, which I am sure is what everyone in this Chamber wants.

Wayne David: We have had a good debate this afternoon. A wide range of issues has been discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), for example, has spoken with passion about Llanishen reservoir, while the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) discussed a number of issues, including what is happening at the Aberystwyth university institute of biological, environmental and rural sciences, which I recently visited. We can discuss that issue further.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a passionate address. She accurately told us about the difficulties of the south Wales experience, particularly during the miners' strike. There was also a colourful speech from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) has given us a clear indication of the excellent work conducted by the Welsh Affairs Committee. He referred particularly to the effective scrutiny of legislative competence orders and the excellent work done on a number of other issues. I should particularly like to refer to the good work that the Committee has done on the future of the Legal Services Commission.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made an important address. He talked about how in the past few years his constituency had been transformed under the Labour Government. Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) talked about the improvements that have taken place in his constituency. He specifically referred to improvements in the national health service. A new hospital is being built in Caerphilly borough; it happens to be in my constituency, but it will serve his constituents as well. Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's tremendous work over a number of years as a member of the Government and a Member of the House.
	We also heard the last St. David's day address from the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price). I pay tribute to his work and the erudite contributions that he has made to debates in the House. I was particularly pleased at his reference to Idris Davies, who came from the Rhymney valley. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) made an erudite speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is a true champion of his constituency.
	One of the main points made by Labour Members in this debate concerned the need to maintain current levels of public expenditure to ensure that the economic recovery that we see now is sustained and developed. A few days ago, a significant letter, signed by no fewer than 67 leading economists, was published in the  Financial Times. It stated:
	If the government did not take up the slack, there would be a deeper recession. But fortunately, wise counsel has prevailed so far, and public spending has been maintained as an offset to reduced spending by the private sector.
	That is eloquent testimony to the effective economic strategy being successfully pursued by the Government. It is imperative that that strategy should be maintained.
	There is a clear distinction between that economic approach and what is being advocated by a number of Conservative Members, in particular the hon. Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones). At the election, there will be a clear choice for the people of Britain, including the people of Wales. It will be between clear investment from a Labour Government and a programme of harsh cuts.
	We have at least an inkling of the cuts that we could expect if a Conservative Government were elected. We have heard the comments about the free breakfasts provided by the Welsh Assembly-the Conservatives describe them as wasteful gimmicks. We have heard the Conservatives say that free prescriptions are unsustainable. Free bus passes have been enormously popular and liberating for elderly people in Wales, but the Conservatives have said that they need to review this scheme.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wayne David: I am sorry, but time is short.  [Interruption.] No, I am quoting accurately from Conservative policy statements.
	If the Conservatives were to get into power, cuts would happen-and not only in the areas to which I have referred. I also believe that the NHS would not be safe in Conservative hands. What evidence do I have? Only this afternoon, for example, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) said that the national health service was based on a plan drawn up by William Beveridge. It was not; Aneurin Bevan, a good Welshman from Tredegar, was the architect of the NHS. Of course, the Conservatives have always been lukewarm with regard to the national health service-that is why they voted against its formation back in 1948, and we will not forget it.
	It is important that we recognise that there are clear divisions in this House between how we approach the central issues that face this country. This debate, although a good debate, has been a polarised one as well. In the near future, this country, too, will have to make a clear choice between what is on offer from the two main parties. The fundamental choice is between a Labour party that will talk about sensible investment and fairness and a Conservative party that will talk about austerity; a Labour party that will talk about sustained modernisation and a Conservative party that will talk about crude cuts; and a Labour party that will talk about an optimistic future and a Conservative party that will talk about a pessimistic, backward-looking future.
	With that kind of choice, the people of Wales will wholeheartedly support the party that is represented on the Labour side of the House. That is why I look to the general election, whenever it comes, with confidence.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: At this, the conclusion of the debate on Welsh affairs, I should report that I have received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), withdrawing a remark made during the last Welsh questions on 10 February, and this will be published in the  Official Report.
	 Following is the full text of the letter:
	 [Dear Mr Speaker,
	 Thank you for your recent letter regarding my use of the phrase two-faced Tories in the Chamber on Wednesday 10 February.
	 While I firmly believe that the expression I used is accurate and, in the context of a robust exchange, was appropriate, I accept your ruling with regard to the use of non-Parliamentary language and I withdraw the phrase.
	 Yours sincerely,
	 Wayne David MP]

E.ON CALL CENTRE (RAYLEIGH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Spellar.)

Mark Francois: I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House of Commons the proposed closure of the E.ON call centre in Rayleigh, in the heart of my constituency. I am glad to be supported in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), several of whose constituents also work at this facility, and who may seek to contribute briefly if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is speaking at the Oxford Union this evening, and who also has several constituents employed at E.ON, also wishes to have his support for them recorded; I shall return to his views on the matter a little later. I am of course also grateful to the Minister for her being here. In a few minutes I will have several detailed questions to put to her, of which I have attempted to give her at least some notice.
	The background to this decision is that E.ON UK has three divisions, one of which, the retail division, incorporates the company's call centres. Several years ago, the division was loss-making and the company therefore put in a turnaround programme, asking employees to alter working practices and improve productivity in an attempt to return the division to profitability. The work force in Rayleigh, who number more than 600 employees, actively participated in this programme to help to restore the division to financial health. As I understand it, E.ON has not yet published its 2009 results for the division, but it is apparently back in profit by some tens of millions of pounds, so quite a turnaround appears to have taken place, to which my constituents have actively contributed. I realise that the company needs to make a profit, but given that the division is now doing so again and that the employees in Rayleigh, who earn an average of less than £20,000 a year, have contributed actively to that turnaround, it seems scant reward for them to be made redundant by E.ON shortly thereafter.
	Nevertheless, the company announced on 20 January that it was proposing to close the Rayleigh call centre, with the loss of more than 600 jobs. I was fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye that day at Prime Minister's questions, and that gave me an opportunity to ask the Prime Minister for an assurance that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Jobcentre Plus network would do everything possible to assist my constituents if they were to be made redundant. In response, the Prime Minister assured me that the rapid response unit of the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus would be made available to assist my constituents. I shall return to that point in a moment.
	On that same day, I met Mr. Paul Golby, the chief executive of E.ON UK. We spent the best part of an hour discussing the issue, and as part of that meeting I asked him directly if the company might be prepared to reconsider its decision, particularly if it were to receive any kind of counter-proposal.
	I subsequently visited the E.ON call centre last Friday, during the half-term recess, where I had meetings with the management of the retail division, including Mr. David Bird, the customer services director. I then met a representative group of 20 employees from the site, including some of the trade union representatives, to discuss the situation. Some of the points that I wish to put to the Minister this evening come directly from that meeting and will be made on behalf of the employees.
	The company has now initiated a consultation process-
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Spellar.)

Mark Francois: For those not familiar with our procedures, that is a technicality, but clearly it must be gone through, so I am grateful to the Government Whip.
	The company has now initiated a consultation process on the future of the Rayleigh site, as it is required to by law. It is due to conclude by mid-April. If the company then decided to proceed with the closure, E.ON would apparently begin to make people redundant at the end of June. The trade unions at the site are apparently now preparing a counter-proposal to put to the company, with the aim of making savings but keeping the site open. It is still being generated, and I have not seen a draft, but if it is credible I urge E.ON to consider it very carefully indeed. I do not want to be accused of raising false hope, but if there were any way that the company might reconsider on the basis of the counter-proposal, my constituents, and indeed their Member of Parliament, would be very grateful.
	I hope that I have been able to give the Minister a clear picture of the current situation. Given what I have said, I have several questions to put to the Minister this evening. First, with regard to the future of the site, the employees would clearly like to continue working, if not for E.ON then for someone else. The work force are highly skilled at what they do, and I understand that the company would be prepared to consider selling the centre as a going concern if a suitable buyer could be found. Given that some UK companies are now bringing call centre jobs back onshore, can the Minister offer any advice on companies that might be considering such a process? If she does not have an answer tonight, will she liaise with colleagues in her Department or elsewhere in Government and then get back to me promptly if she is able to obtain any information about a potential alternative investor for the Rayleigh call centre facility, who might be encouraged to consider the idea more closely and help save my constituents' jobs? I am sure that she can understand why I ask the question, and any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
	Secondly, E.ON has employed an outplacement company called Right Management to assist employees to find other work if the proposed closure proceeds. Essex Jobcentre Plus has also attempted to contact the company to provide advice and support to employees, but so far E.ON has not actively taken up its offer of assistance. I have no prior reason to doubt the abilities of Right Management, but I would like to have the maximum possible support available to my constituents. Following my visit, E.ON has assured me that it will improve communication with Jobcentre Plus, and in fairness I believe that it has been in contact with that organisation. However, will the Minister reiterate the types of services that Jobcentre Plus might be able to offer my constituents in these circumstances, so that they know what is available?
	Thirdly, if the closure goes ahead, E.ON is apparently prepared to provide redundancy pay beyond the statutory minimum. However, it is currently also saying that if any employee were to leave before the end of June because they had been fortunate to secure another job, they might have to forfeit their redundancy payment. That seems unfair, particularly given the large number of employees who could otherwise all come on to the job market at the same time. I am told that the company might well be prepared to consider waiving that condition, but that doing so would effectively require the consent of the trade unions, at least before the consultation period concludes. I would definitely like the company to alter its position on that issue, so can the Minister confirm whether the situation as it has been explained to me is correct?
	Fourthly, when I spoke to employees last week a number expressed understandable concern at the need to continue to meet mortgage payments if they lose their jobs with E.ON. Will the Minister summarise the help that would be available to help individuals meet their mortgage payments if they were to be made redundant through no fault of their own?
	Fifthly, if the closure is confirmed, Rochford district council has offered in principle to organise an open day at the call centre, which staff from its economic development office and benefits division could attend to offer advice to employees on access to benefits, and links to other employers in the district. When I put that idea to the employee representatives, it was quite well received. They suggested that local training organisations and colleges might also like to be invited, to give those employees who might be interested an opportunity to consider retraining packages or even returning to further or higher education. If that were to go ahead, would the Department be prepared to support it?
	Sixthly, I hope that the Minister, and indeed you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me to place on record a brief letter of support from my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, who is clearly rather upset with E.ON and who has this to say about the situation:
	Whilst it was absolutely the right thing to do to contact my hon. Friend about E.ON's proposed closure of the call centre in Rayleigh, I think it was less than courteous not to contact myself as a neighbouring MP who has many constituents working at the centre. This announcement has come as a terrible blow to the region and to families who work at the centre. As of yet, I have had no explanation as to why this decision is being made, which would-at the very least-give the local authorities and Members of Parliament concerned an opportunity to see if they could persuade the company to change its mind.
	In conclusion, my hon. Friend states:
	As a long-standing supporter of this energy company, I am very disappointed that they are embarking upon a very short-sighted decision, which I believe they will regret. I very much hope they will reverse their decision and intend to support my hon. Friend's efforts in that endeavour.
	That is my hon. Friend's rather robust position.
	As I am sure the Minister can understand, I hope that E.ON might recognise the very real contribution that its employees at Rayleigh have made to returning its retail division to profitability, and that it might reconsider the proposed closure at the conclusion of the consultation process in April. However, if that proves not to be the case, as many employees at the site obviously fear-that was apparent during my visit-I would like the maximum amount of support to be made available to my constituents, not only by Right Management under contract to E.ON, but by the Department, the Jobcentre Plus network and the relevant local authorities, including Rochford district council and Essex county council, both of which, I believe, stand ready to assist if they can.
	E.ON is currently the largest private sector employer in Rayleigh, and therefore I hope the Minister can understand my concern at what the closure could mean not only for the employees and their families, but for the wider community in Rayleigh, including local businesses that have previously relied on its custom. This is a blow for the town, not just the company and the people who work there.
	As I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, no Member of Parliament likes the prospect of a major redundancy in their constituency, and I am no exception. I hope she appreciates the non-partisan spirit in which I have sought to raise this issue this evening, and I look forward very much to hearing what she has to say, some of which, I hope, will be of material help to my constituents. I reiterate that some of the questions that I have put to her effectively come from the meeting I had at the facility.
	I will conclude in the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East can also make a contribution, not least on behalf of his constituents who are employed at the facility.

James Duddridge: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on securing this very important debate. He is not only a valued member of the shadow Cabinet, but a first-rate constituency MP and a most excellent neighbour whom I am proud to call my friend. As he said, despite E.ON being in Rayleigh, a number of constituents who I have the honour of representing will also be losing their jobs. I thank him for this opportunity to raise the issue and to develop it further by considering the call centre and high-volume processing jobs that have been lost across south Essex.
	Sadly, the closure of E.ON is not an isolated case. Southend has suffered from several large closures resulting in substantial job losses in the past year or two. One hundred and sixty-four jobs were lost at Lloyds TSB, and at the end of last year, just before Christmas, it was announced that 750 jobs will be lost at HSBC. The staff at the bank based above Victoria shopping centre were taken to the Odeon and told that the entire Southend HSBC credit card and collection service would be moved to Birmingham in 2011. For most at both E.ON and HSBC, moving such a distance would not be an option. After the announcement of the HSBC closure, I wrote to the group chief executive and expressed my concern about whether my constituents were receiving all the assistance that they could. I received some reassurance and I am looking forward to meeting face to face with representatives from the bank, in addition to the conversations that I have had to date.
	HMRC will shed 1,000 jobs in Southend by 2011. The situation is even more difficult to come to terms with for those who have lost their jobs, because the Department for Communities and Local Government rightly deems Southend a regeneration zone at the same time as the Treasury discourages jobs being relocated to the town.
	The cumulative loss of call centre jobs deserves a co-ordinated response from the Government. This may also be an opportunity to look again at the Lyons review, which stopped civil service jobs coming to areas of deprivation such as Southend, East. I share my hon. Friend's views about the closure of E.ON and am especially interested to hear the Minister's response to his questions about the support that the Jobcentre Plus network can provide to those being made redundant, some of whom will be looking for jobs in institutions that are already closing in Southend. This is a very grave matter, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on securing this debate on what is an important subject. I certainly realise that the announcement by E.ON UK is very bad news for his constituents. The company is a significant local employer and he has clearly set out the serious impact that the potential loss of 600 jobs will have in the area. The global recession that we have witnessed over the past 18 months has, sadly, left its mark on many communities around the country, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) also made clear.
	I will try to address the points made by the hon. Member for Rayleigh, and I first wish to assure him that we will work with the Government office for the east of England and the East of England Development Agency to explore whether other companies might be interested in buying the centre. One of my officials from Go East spoke to E.ON this morning and I understand that the company is currently focused on the consultation exercise. Once that has been completed we can enter into more detailed discussions with the company about the disposal of the site. However, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, it is important not to raise expectations in the area, because we are not aware of any potential buyers at present. We will of course continue discussions. EEDA has also been in touch with the company and will be able to move forward as soon as the final announcement is made. I will keep in touch with him should any potential investors be identified.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he is right to emphasise how important it is that Jobcentre Plus plays a leading role in the support services provided to E.ON employees. The rapid response service offered by Jobcentre Plus will work with E.ON and its employees to identify the support, advice and information that they would need. I know that a meeting has taken place this afternoon between Jobcentre Plus representatives and E.ON, to discuss the package of support to be provided in the event of closure.
	I understand that E.ON has agreed that, following the consultation period, Jobcentre Plus advisers will be able to go to on-site surgeries for staff and open days and to get housing advice. In the meantime, an information leaflet for E.ON staff will be put together detailing the full range of support available from all providers. The rapid response service offers a wide range of services, including help with job searching and skills matching. As I have said, it will run dedicated advice surgeries for employees and give referrals to services provided by other local agencies. Crucially, it also acts as a gateway to training and reskilling, assessing an individual's needs and matching them with the training and funding opportunities available.
	That support from Jobcentre Plus will be at the heart of a comprehensive and co-ordinated package of Government support provided through local and regional partners. The response to redundancy programme, offered jointly by the EEDA, Jobcentre Plus and the Learning and Skills Council, is also available to E.ON to complement the service provided by the rapid response service. It can offer a number of additional services, depending on work force needs-everything from child care for people attending training to advice on setting up a business. Importantly, the response to redundancy programme can also help to fund appropriate training courses for employees.
	The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned Rochford district council and Essex county council, both of which are working to ensure E.ON staff will be able to access the advice that they need on benefits, finance and housing issues. I understand that a fact sheet has been produced bringing together all the resources available to people under threat of redundancy. I emphasise that all those public bodies are working together closely to ensure that E.ON staff can call on a co-ordinated and wide-ranging support package if the Rayleigh call centre does close.

Mark Francois: I am grateful for what the Minister has said, and I am pleased to hear that E.ON is now actively talking to Jobcentre Plus. It might be a pure coincidence that that meeting took place this afternoon, on the day of this debate, but if, per chance, the fact that we secured this debate suddenly encouraged the company to talk to Jobcentre Plus properly, I would be pleased to know that perhaps we have achieved something by that method.

Rosie Winterton: It is certainly true that there were some initial difficulties in making contact with E.ON to discuss its plans, but I am happy to say that constructive discussions are now taking place. Rochford district council is due to meet Right Management-the company engaged by E.ON, and to which the hon. Gentleman referred-in the next two weeks to discuss how its services can be integrated into the comprehensive support package that I have outlined.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of redundancy terms. I am advised that, if agreement is reached between the employer and the trade unions representing employees, the consultation period can be curtailed prior to its scheduled conclusion. In those circumstances, staff members would be released with payment in lieu of the period they are not working, and with the appropriate redundancy pay. As he said, he raised that with the company during his visit last Friday, and I understand that E.ON has indicated that, in the event of redundancies, it will try to be sympathetic to people working at the call centre. I also understand that E.ON is awaiting proposals on this issue from the union.
	The Government have set up two schemes for people who need mortgage support. The first is the home owner mortgage support scheme, which is designed to help owner-occupiers who suffer a temporary fall in income, for example because of redundancy. The scheme provides a valuable bridge, giving home owners who are experiencing financial problems sufficient time to find new employment. Those who wish to take advantage of the scheme should contact their mortgage lenders.
	The mortgage rescue scheme is delivered through local authorities, registered social landlords, lenders and debt advice agencies. It is designed to help both families with dependent children, and elderly people and other vulnerable groups, although I suspect that the latter two groups would perhaps not apply in this instance. The mortgage rescue scheme offers two options. The first option is a Government mortgage to rent, under which an RSL buys the property and rents it back to the applicant, and the second is shared equity, under which the RSL provides an equity loan, enabling the householder's mortgage repayments to be reduced. In those circumstances it is appropriate to contact the local authority.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we would be willing to support an open day for E.ON employees organised by Rochford district council. Were such an event to be organised, I can confirm that representatives from the Government office for the east of England would attend, as well as representatives from the East of England Development Agency, the Learning and Skills Council, and Jobcentre Plus, to ensure that E.ON employees got as much information and derived as much benefit as possible from the day. In such circumstances it is important to reassure employees that all the information about the support available is being pulled together, so that they can be confident that they know how to access that support.

Mark Francois: I have discussed the concept with Mr. Paul Warren, the chief executive of Rochford district council, and Councillor Terry Cutmore, who is the leader of Rochford district council and who, by coincidence, used to work at the call centre a few years ago. They are both keen to help if they can, and I would like to thank the Minister on their behalf for what she has just said.
	If I can briefly take the Minister back to the point about redundancy payments, I realise that there are a number of legal technicalities and that things are slightly complicated, but let me stress something. My point in principle is that if people have worked for the company-particularly if they have worked there for a number of years-and if they can get a job before the end of June, it is incumbent on the company to recognise the difficulty that they are in and the service that they have given, and not penalise their redundancies as a result. I want to drive that point home now, while I have the chance.

Rosie Winterton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making that point to E.ON too, as I understand he indeed has. All such discussions are obviously subject to agreement between the company and the trade unions.
	I understand that HMRC estimates that it will need 300 fewer staff in Southend by 2011, and that it aims to achieve this through natural wastage and a range of redeployment options for staff. There are no current plans for redundancy, and the intention remains to avoid that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East will also be aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that a review was being held to look into ensuring that progress on seeing where civil servants might be relocated out of London to other areas continues, and that work is progressing as well.

James Duddridge: I recognise the figure of 300, but the figure that I was quoted was around 1,000. Does the Minister recognise that 2,491 people were employed by HMRC in 2004 in the constituency that I have the honour to represent, but that that figure is projected to go down to 1,500 in 2011? I am looking at the longer term. Does she recognise that by 2011 there will have been a reduction of more than 1,000 jobs?

Rosie Winterton: I am not completely au fait with the figures that pertained prior to the ones that I gave the House just now, but I obviously assume that the hon. Gentleman is speaking correctly when he describes that reduction. If there is anything else that I can add, however, I will write to him.
	The Government are absolutely committed to creating as many new job opportunities as possible. The East of England Development Agency has done a lot of work to support businesses and people during the downturn, as well as looking to the future and considering the type of industries that we can encourage in order to ensure that we take advantage of all the job opportunities, once the recovery really gets under way. For example, it has supported the expansion of Southend airport, which is adjacent to Rochford. That could involve the creation of about 3,000 new jobs in the sub-region. The regional development agency has also invested heavily in the university campus at Southend to increase higher-level skills in an area that historically has not had all those skills. We hope that these important investments will boost the employment prospects of people in the area and make south Essex a much more attractive destination for commercial investment.
	As I have said, we are certainly focusing on the generation of new jobs and new economic opportunities for people in Rayleigh and across the country. I very much hope that the people working at E.ON will be able to access such job opportunities if the call centre does indeed close. That is why we are standing four-square behind them at national level, working closely with local and regional partners. We want to ensure that people get the training, support and advice that they will need to cope with the transition, if it comes.

Mark Francois: I apologise for interrupting the Minister's conclusion, but I want briefly to thank her for the spirit in which she has approached this debate. She has provided a lot of information for which I am sure my constituents will be grateful, and I thank her for that. I should like to thank my hon. Friend for being here to support me, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) for supporting me in that rather punchy letter. That is very much his style. I should also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, for giving me this opportunity to raise their fate in the Commons Chamber this evening. I am very grateful, and, with that, I shall allow the Minister to conclude her speech.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I can assure him that we will remain in touch about any developments in the area, and try to ensure that, if the worst does happen, his constituents will be able to get back into work as soon as possible, with the kind of support that we are going to supply.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.